← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Mithras
Thread ID: 11498 | Posts: 113 | Started: 2003-12-16
2003-12-16 20:04 | User Profile
This website discusses an alternative view of who Jesus was or might be:
[url]http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm[/url]
What do the Christians here think about this?
Here is a quote from the site:
[QUOTE]Emperor Julian, who, coming after the reign of the fanatical and murderous "good Christian" Constantine, returned rights to pagan worshippers, stated, "If anyone should wish to know the truth with respect to you Christians, he will find your impiety to be made up partly of the Jewish audacity, and partly of the indifference and confusion of the Gentiles, and that you have put together not the best, but the worst characteristics of them both."[/QUOTE]
2003-12-16 22:51 | User Profile
Actually Mithras, very few Christians will ever seriously read an article like that at all, and even fewer will read it with an unbiased eye. That's because, deep down, they're afraid it will cause them to doubt their religion, thus opening them up a bit to the danger that God -- a God who, according to Christianity, loves them even more than a human mother could ever love her own child -- will burn them in hellfire for eternity for not believing as they ought to.
I think the article is very plausible, actually. But although I was born and raised a Christian, I have become very, very skeptical after wrestling with the innumerable logical and moral problems inherent in Christianity (and other "revealed religions" as well).
Christianity sends the following message as its "Good News": God loves you and sent His Son to die to take the punishment for your sins -- which, by the way, you couldn't help committing because your ancestors sinned, but which you're morally responsible for anyway. Believe this regardless of the evidence or your own powers of logic, or else you will be doomed to a punishment far worse than any human being could ever conceive of. But if you'll just believe it -- oh, and as Paul warns, don't resist the civil authorities! -- then you'll get to live in paradise and luxury for eternity.
From which source does the above message sound like it comes? From an infinitely just, wise, powerful, good, and loving God? Or from human beings who wanted to frighten other people into obedience? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... OR ELSE!!
Christians believe in the Bible for precisely the same reasons that Muslims believe in the Koran. Christians reject the Koran for the precisely the same reasons that Muslims reject the Christian Bible. It's just that simple. The adherents of each faith are certain that their religion is the correct one and all alternate faiths are false. Even Jim Jones' followers and, more recently, the members of the Heaven's Gate cult had enough faith to die for their beliefs. It's funny how religion can have such a profound effect on the mind.
2003-12-17 02:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Actually Mithras, very few Christians will ever seriously read an article like that at all, and even fewer will read it with an unbiased eye. That's because, deep down, they're afraid it will cause them to doubt their religion, thus opening them up a bit to the danger that God -- a God who, according to Christianity, loves them even more than a human mother could ever love her own child -- will burn them in hellfire for eternity for not believing as they ought to. [/QUOTE]
No, most Christians have seen this stuff before and won't read it because they understand that the anti-Christ forces are always trying to discredit or tear-down Jesus Christ and will use any tactic imaginable.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-17 02:30 | User Profile
Religion is just a transcendentely legimitated ideology - you cant critisize it no matter how unlogic or primitive it might be, because in the Mosaic monotheistic religions the whole truth and ideology comes from god.
Its such an easy and simple way to legiminate rules which can be useful for society or not... Christianity was just useful when it was adapted by the Europeans! The pure Christian religion (new testament) was something with "high moral" but no sence for realities.
It might be good to be inspired by the new testament but not to follow it word for word because this must lead just to your own and your collective destruction.
Islam was very useful for the folk which it was made for, for many years. Islam is more ideological and has more direct and precise rules for its followers. It was good at that time, for that region, for this folk under this circumstances. But there is no absolut truth in it and some rules are today just a weakness, others are still very useful. It would be logical to change the bad rules, but hey, same like it was in christianity...the rules are from god no matter how the circumstances are changing.
Thats the weakness of even the best religion. Same for ideology, but ideology you can (theoretically) critisize from an logical point of view, religion is just a matter of "believe".
This believe is nothing else than the human constant of group-acting, of the instinct to fight for your group. In culture, civilization this has just changed its form, but basically its an very primitive human reaction.
Useful to make humans for fighting for the group even if they lose their life. And for sure good to make people more moralic and stabile because of the security to have a life after death and the fear of punishment in the next life.
But its some kind of weakness too. The weakness not to believe what you are seeing, what you should know if you are thinking logical and are intelligent but just "believe".
If at least the leaders still thinking thats ok, but if not you are doomed.
But to this article:
There is no absolut proof or disproof for the existence of Jesus. But my personal opinion is that the material is consistent enough to say that AT LEAST the legend of Jesus Christ [B]is based [/B] upon a real person.
How much is legend and how much was real is just another question.
This has nothing to do with the question of Jesus as the son of god or just normal human. In my opinion he was a normal human and this followers made up an huge legend about him after his death and maybe even during his presence.
Just think about some sect leaders in US.
This was just the most successful sect which ever existed on this planet so far. Sect because its no natural grown religion but one first adopted by a small group and then spread all over the old, respecitively new world too.
2003-12-17 05:52 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasThis website discusses an alternative view of who Jesus was or might be:
[url]http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm[/url]
What do the Christians here think about this?
Here is a quote from the site:[/QUOTE]
"Shocking as it may seem to the general populace, the most enduring and profound controversy in this subject is whether or not a person named Jesus Christ ever really existed."
This was the intellectual jolt going through liberal (i.e., neo-orthodox) Protestant theology in the 1950's and afterward, blending with: a. logical empiricism's unrefuted argument that a God with no verifiable deductive interences to be derived from assumption of "existence" is an empty term (does not determine a cognitive content; while if deductive consequences are held to follow from assumption of God's existence, then it becomes a kind of scientific hypothesis; b. Rudolf Bultman's widely influential work on "Demythologizing the Gospel", using the dubious -- and, in the end, obfuscating -- category of "myth" for comparing "religious" sign-uses* (system of correlated words-pictures used according to grammatical rules to communicate); c. Ernst Cassirer's staggeringly learned deliniation of the "Mythic" as a distinct [B]way of communicating, indicated in different grammars by special "tokens": empirical forms of S*[/B]
By 1975, these influences had philosophically converged, in academic America, with the "God is Dead" era of early 60's -- Paul Tillich fans dispensing with even the old token-reminder of O.T. YHWH-ism (I'm comng to pre-modern and Jewish part presently); the Dead Kennedy - Vietnam war - "baby boomer" generation as cultural scene; the onslaught on traditional metaphysical categories stabilizing what Kant called The Transcendental Unity of Apperception, on the subjective, private, token side of actual experience. Kant deduced that such a souce of synthetic unity was presupposed -- shifting the grounds from the Transcendent to the Transcendental -- but left it up to the exercise of freedom under the moral law to supply the empirical conditions of the apriori ground of unity. Fichte came in and showed this condition could not be satisfeid unless a man loved his nation "under the image of eternity": he cannot love himself without first loving that. We are speaking here of a Will actualized in early 19th century Germany as "dass ich", the "ego" (later analyzed by Freud) of modern industrial Europe. It was not exactly the "I" that was developing in America, under the British/Irish/German/black mix brewing, brought together under a new type of non-hierarchical (don't want to say "Protestant", again) set of governmental assumptions. [B]ULTRA LIBERAL[/B] by old-world standards, with hardly a Jew in sight. Jews became dass Ich's alter-ego. The marriage of these opposites -- Ich for me, anytime; up to a point -- has invaded American politics, culture, religion and way of life beyond all endurance.
This comparative use of "Jesus Christ" is part of the attempt to wipe out the spiritual accomplishments of the entire historical age of Pisces, to re-establilsh the grammar-of-being of Tarot-Torah Malvo - Matrix Reload,Rerun,Return, false Rebirth of Zion as Israel, on earth. The links are obvious, whether intentional, coincidental, Hand of God writing on The Wall of Iraqi skies, or arranged by the Annanuki, CIA and Mossad in a cosmic conspiracy to deal head-on with the [B]enormous blasphemy[/B] and metaphysical catastrophy this messianic breed of neo-con Jews, mainly (but with some international Catholic, and Unborn Protestant TV whores licking Max's Boots and pumping Poddy's Iron) hath wrought. They take a term like "godman", or "religion"; universalize it to include eveerything from Khazar nuptials to Liz Taylor-Michael Jackson sleep-overs as involving holy rites; particularize the personal application of its use in strange and weird ways; then have the nerve to turn arund and explain to you what you should have been meaning (=communicating) by your[B]S*[/B] all along. Off with your head if you refuse to concede. By this means the youth have been indoctrinated by the brainwashing power of their Bushmaster, telling them it is alright to shoot and kill without conscience or mercy, in the name of God, amen.
2003-12-17 07:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Christians believe in the Bible for precisely the same reasons that Muslims believe in the Koran. Christians reject the Koran for the precisely the same reasons that Muslims reject the Christian Bible. It's just that simple. The adherents of each faith are certain that their religion is the correct one and all alternate faiths are false. Even Jim Jones' followers and, more recently, the members of the Heaven's Gate cult had enough faith to die for their beliefs. It's funny how religion can have such a profound effect on the mind.[/QUOTE] In other words, all religion is culturally determined, and people believe just what their culture tells them to believe. Just like the Boasnian cultural relativists tell us about religion.
Oddly enough however, if you believe by this reasoning that Christians and Moslems believe for precisely the same reasons (their culture) it leads you to the viewpoint that all cultures are the same, i.e. the Boasnian view of cultural relativism and rejection of ethnocentrism.
And like I always point out - voila. The neo-nazi has become a neoconservative. Welcome to Foxman city.
2003-12-17 15:36 | User Profile
Yes, however, if Jesus, Odin, Buddha, Heru, Ausares, Mithras, etc., etc., are all based on the same teaching or "God", then I would be compelled to ask which was the original one/culture.
And if they are all similar, doesn't Odin grant as much salvation and knowledge as Buddha or Jesus? And if so, why not be Odinists or Mithraists?
What is it about Christianity that you find more attractive than say Asatru or Celtic faith?
2003-12-17 15:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]In other words, all religion is culturally determined, and people believe just what their culture tells them to believe. Just like the Boasnian cultural relativists tell us about religion.
Oddly enough however, if you believe by this reasoning that Christians and Moslems believe for precisely the same reasons (their culture) it leads you to the viewpoint that all cultures are the same, i.e. the Boasnian view of cultural relativism and rejection of ethnocentrism.[/QUOTE] It's fallacious to reject a line of reasoning because we don't like its conclusions. Fortunately that isn't necessary in this case, since the reasoning you've used to get from premise to the above conclusion is flawed and does not lead us to the adoption of cultural relativism. If we start from the assumption that "culture is the common reason for Christians' and Muslims' religious beliefs," in no way does that imply that Christian and Muslim cultures must be the same. That would be analogous to the claim that, because Westerners and Middle-Easterners wear clothing for the same basic reasons, they must therefore wear the same style of clothing. In fact, if culture were the sole determinant of a society's dominant religious belief, then the obvious fact that Islam and Christianity are substantially different religions would necessarily point to the conclusion that the cultures in which these religions are dominant -- namely, Western and Middle-Eastern -- must be different.
At any rate, cultural issues weren't exactly what I had in mind when I initially referred to reasons for religious belief. I was thinking more in terms of human psychological issues, such as the nearly universal fear of death and the innate desire to explain the unknown. Human societies and races differ greatly from each other, but let's face it: there are certain psychological attributes common to human beings in ALL societies (e.g., the survival instinct). This is self-evident, but such similarities need not stand in the way of an ethnocentric worldview -- even if compatibility with such a worldview were the acid test for objective truth.
2003-12-17 17:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]No, most Christians have seen this stuff before and won't read it because they understand that the anti-Christ forces are always trying to discredit or tear-down Jesus Christ and will use any tactic imaginable.
Regards, Wild Bill[/QUOTE]
That's quite a selfish view it seems to me. Just think how we pagans feel? We realize that our Gods may not have walked the earth as humans, but we don't feel that our religions are any less potent. The anti-christ argument is merely a tool to fuel division between whites. We pagans can resort to calling Christians anti-pagan, too. The jews can call anyone who questions them anti-semitic. But the refusal to discuss aspects of both our religions only hurts your cause. Superstition is a negro fantasy. Words of discussion do not hurt a thing.
2003-12-19 10:59 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasThat's quite a selfish view it seems to me. Just think how we pagans feel? We realize that our Gods may not have walked the earth as humans, but we don't feel that our religions are any less potent.[/QUOTE]
I think that history confirms the failure of paganism. After all, if the pagan gods had been more powerful, Christianity wouldn't have taken over Europe and made the white race the masters of the world. Now we see Christian influence weakening and being subverted, and the West's future looks grim.
[QUOTE] The anti-christ argument is merely a tool to fuel division between whites. We pagans can resort to calling Christians anti-pagan, too. [/QUOTE]
Are you saying that Christians should subordinate their beliefs in order to avoid offending pagans?
Let me ask you, why would you want to be a pagan? What good is paganism doing?
You might be interested to know that one of the things that caused me to become a Christian was the neo-paganism within the patriotic movement. The main themes in neo-paganism always seem to center around occultism, death, violence, and doom.
[QUOTE] The jews can call anyone who questions them anti-semitic. But the refusal to discuss aspects of both our religions only hurts your cause. Superstition is a negro fantasy. Words of discussion do not hurt a thing.[/QUOTE]
You post a message that says Jesus Christ is a fake and you wonder why I don't want to discuss it? Why would I want to even lend credibility to such nonsense?
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-19 17:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]I think that history confirms the failure of paganism. After all, if the pagan gods had been more powerful, Christianity wouldn't have taken over Europe and made the white race the masters of the world. Now we see Christian influence weakening and being subverted, and the West's future looks grim. [/QUOTE]
Empire and technology are not exactly concepts that were created by Christianity. The suggestion of the "failure of paganism" is laughable. What was its intentions? What is paganism?
[QUOTE]Let me ask you, why would you want to be a pagan? What good is paganism doing? [/QUOTE]
It is my culture. Magick is a successful method of attaining Godhead.
[QUOTE]You might be interested to know that one of the things that caused me to become a Christian was the neo-paganism within the patriotic movement. The main themes in neo-paganism always seem to center around occultism, death, violence, and doom.[/QUOTE]
What is neo-paganism?
[QUOTE]You post a message that says Jesus Christ is a fake and you wonder why I don't want to discuss it? Why would I want to even lend credibility to such nonsense?[/QUOTE]
Where did it say that Jesus was a [I]fake[/I]? That is the problem with you people. It said that he is based on other Gods and mythologies.
2003-12-19 18:09 | User Profile
QUOTE=Mithras It is my culture. Magick is a successful method of attaining Godhead. [/QUOTE]
What is your culture? What is "attaining Godhead?"
[QUOTE] What is neo-paganism? [/QUOTE]
You know, these recent made-up forms of paganism such as Odinism, Wotanism, or whatever they call it. These people are trying to recreate something that hasn't existed for at least 1,000 years.
[QUOTE] Where did it say that Jesus was a [I]fake[/I]? That is the problem with you people. It said that he is based on other Gods and mythologies.[/QUOTE]
Jesus is unique and isn't based on any other gods. Denying that is saying that Jesus isn't who He is.
I think maybe you imagine all religions are merely a cultural manifestations, whereas I view Christianity as God's revealed truth and everything else is something other than that. That includes not just paganism, but Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and even some false doctrines which claim to be "Christianity."
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-19 19:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]What is your culture? What is "attaining Godhead?" [/QUOTE]
Godhead is a Paradise or Perfection of Man while in life through a series of initiations and magical practices. That is what the Christian salvation was based upon, but people misinterpreted the text to read something attained after physical death, when it referred to a "spiritual or symbolic death."
Culture is blood, language, tradition.
[QUOTE]You know, these recent made-up forms of paganism such as Odinism, Wotanism, or whatever they call it. These people are trying to recreate something that hasn't existed for at least 1,000 years.[/QUOTE]
You call Asatru "made-up" yet get angry when someone calls your Christ "made-up"? Are you for real?
[QUOTE]Jesus is unique and isn't based on any other gods. Denying that is saying that Jesus isn't who He is. [/QUOTE]
That is not the same thing and you know it. Saying he is what you think he is could be taken as "denying what he actually is."
[QUOTE]I think maybe you imagine all religions are merely a cultural manifestations, [/QUOTE]
No I don't.
[QUOTE]whereas I view Christianity as God's revealed truth[/QUOTE]
Through the eyes and ears of jews? If he is really God why then did he come to jews? And why do you reject the God that came to the Norsemen, or the Celts or whomever else?
[QUOTE]and everything else is something other than that. That includes not just paganism, but Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and even some false doctrines which claim to be "Christianity."[/QUOTE]
But we live in the same universe on the same planet sharing the same human species?
2003-12-19 19:44 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasGodhead is a Paradise or Perfection of Man while in life through a series of initiations and magical practices. That is what the Christian salvation was based upon, but people misinterpreted the text to read something attained after physical death, when it referred to a "spiritual or symbolic death."[/QUOTE]
Who are these "people" who misinterpreted this? Strange how the Church doesn't know anything like your version of Christian teaching.
[QUOTE] Culture is blood, language, tradition. [/QUOTE]
A tradition is something that is passed down. The Christian Church has a continuous Tradition. Asatru hasn't been passed down. It was cooked-up in modern times.
[QUOTE]You call Asatru "made-up" yet get angry when someone calls your Christ "made-up"? Are you for real?[/QUOTE]
The fact is the Christianity has a continuous 2,000 year Tradition. Only cranks try to dispute that.
Asatru has no tradition. 50 years ago it didn't exist.
[QUOTE] Through the eyes and ears of jews? If he is really God why then did he come to jews? And why do you reject the God that came to the Norsemen, or the Celts or whomever else?[/QUOTE]
All paganism is fundamentally demonic. I'm not saying the people who subscribe to paganism are necessarily demonic. Many are just naive. Nonetheless, even in my most generous assessment, I could only say that paganism is a very incomplete understanding of God.
God has no nationality, so its improper to talk about the Jews. They just happened to be the group God gave His first chance. Of course, they failed miserably because they're corrupt and foolish. They murdered Christ and they believed that biology made them holy and superior to everyone else and they subverted God's teaching into a system of self-worship. For their apostasy, the Bible says the sceptre was taken from the them and given to the Christians who are the true spiritual heirs of Abraham.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-19 20:19 | User Profile
In my mind the perplexing multiplicity of "religions" began to sort itself out. The real clue had been put into my hand by that hard-boiled Atheist when he said, "Rum thing, all that about the Dying God. Seems to have really happened once"; by him and by Barfield's encouragement of a more respectful, if not more delighted, attitude to Pagan myth. The question was no longer to find the one simply true religion among a thousand religions simply false. It was rather, "Where has religion reached its true maturity? Where, if anywhere, have the hints of all Paganism been fulfilled?" With the irreligious I was no longer concerned; their view of life was henceforth out of court. As against them, the whole mass of those who had worshipped - all who had danced and sung and sacrificed and trembled and adored - were clearly right. But the intellect and the conscience, as well as the orgy and the ritual, must be our guide. There could be no question of going back to primitive, untheologized and unmoralized, Paganism. The God whom I had at last acknowledged was one, and was righteous. Paganism had been only the childhood of religion, or only a prophetic dream. Where was the thing full grown? or where was the awakening? (The Everlasting Man was helping me here.) There were really only two answers possible: either in Hinduism or in Christianity. Everything else was either a preparation for, or else (in the French sense) a vulgarization of, these. Whatever you could find elsewhere you could find better in one of these. But Hinduism seemed to have two disqualifications. For one thing, it appeared to be not so much a moralized and philosophical maturity of Paganism as a mere oil-and-water coexistence of philosophy side by side with Paganism unpurged; the Brahmin meditating in the forest, and, in the village a few miles away, temple prostitution, sati, cruelty, monstrosity. And secondly, there was no such historical claim as in Christianity. I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion - those narrow, unattractive Jews, too blind to the mythical wealth of the Pagan world around them - was precisely the matter of the great myths. If ever a myth had become a fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it. And no Person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognizable, through all that depth of time, as Plato's Socrates or Boswell's Johnson (ten times more than Eckerson's Goethe or Lockhart's Scott), yet also numinous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god. But if a god - we are no longer polytheists - then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, Man. This is not "a religion," nor "a philosophy." It is the summing up and actuality of them all.
As I have said, I speak of this last transition less certainly than of any which went before it, and it may be that in the preceding paragraph I have mixed thoughts that came later. But I can hardly be wrong about the main lines. Of one thing I am sure. As I drew near the conclusion, I felt a resistance almost as strong as my previous resistance to Theism. As strong, but shorter-lived, for I understood it better. Every step I had taken, from the Absolute to "Spirit" and from "Spirit" to "God," had been a step toward the more concrete, the more imminent, the more compulsive. At each step one had less chance "to call one's soul one's own." To accept the Incarnation was a further step in the same direction. It brings God nearer, or near in a new way. And this, I found, was something I had not wanted. But to recognize the ground for my evasion was of course to recognize both its shame and its futility. I know very well when, but hardly how, the final step was taken. I was driven to Whipsnade one sunny morning. When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly spent the journey in thought. Nor in great emotion. "Emotional" is perhaps the last word we can apply to some of the most important events. It was more like when a man, after long sleep, still lying motionless in bed, becomes aware that he is now awake. And it was, like that moment on top of the bus, ambiguous. ... As for what we commonly call Will, and what we commonly call Emotion, I fancy these usually talk too loud, protest too much, to be quite believed, and we have a secret suspicion that the great passion or the iron resolution is partly a put-up job.
2003-12-19 20:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Who are these "people" who misinterpreted this? Strange how the Church doesn't know anything like your version of Christian teaching. [/QUOTE]
I have met practicing Christians as well as priests who do acknowledge even believe in this version. You should not assume that you have seen and heard it all.
[QUOTE]A tradition is something that is passed down. The Christian Church has a continuous Tradition. Asatru hasn't been passed down. It was cooked-up in modern times. [/QUOTE]
How the hell would you know what has or has not been passed down? You must live in a cave if you think Asatru is a cooked-up modern practice.
[QUOTE]Asatru has no tradition. 50 years ago it didn't exist.[/QUOTE]
Rubbish.
[QUOTE]All paganism is fundamentally demonic. I'm not saying the people who subscribe to paganism are necessarily demonic. Many are just naive. Nonetheless, even in my most generous assessment, I could only say that paganism is a very incomplete understanding of God.[/QUOTE]
Rubbish.
[QUOTE]God has no nationality,[/QUOTE]
Rubbish.
[QUOTE]so its improper to talk about the Jews.[/QUOTE]
Avoiding the issue.
[QUOTE]They just happened to be the group God gave His first chance.[/QUOTE]
Although God existed billions of years earlier? You have proven that your view is hatred of White cultures and the White race. That is why Christians are despised. Don't you get it? We pagans don't oppose Christianity but we do oppose self-hating Christians.
[QUOTE]Of course, they failed miserably because they're corrupt and foolish. They murdered Christ[/QUOTE]
You worship a God that was murdered by inferior trash? If he was all-knowing shouldn't he have known that it was a waste of time to spend one ounce of his attention on jews? How come he (Paul) says that since the jews rejected him (Christ) that a number of goyim must take their place in the "salvation"? Shouldn't WE GENTILES be a priority?
2003-12-19 23:33 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasI have met practicing Christians as well as priests who do acknowledge even believe in this version. You should not assume that you have seen and heard it all.[/QUOTE]
You can find all kinds of incorrect teaching and heresy among people. Priests? What priests? Catholic Priests? I'm not a Catholic.
Show me where any Christian authority ever supported your theory.
[QUOTE] How the hell would you know what has or has not been passed down? You must live in a cave if you think Asatru is a cooked-up modern practice.[/QUOTE]
Ok, who was the leader of Asatru in 1800? How many Asatru groups existed in 1700? Can you show me any Asatru books published before 1900?
[QUOTE] Rubbish. [/QUOTE]
And you accuse me of avoiding an issue?
[QUOTE] Although God existed billions of years earlier? You have proven that your view is hatred of White cultures and the White race. That is why Christians are despised. Don't you get it? We pagans don't oppose Christianity but we do oppose self-hating Christians.[/QUOTE]
I've been around the paganistic/atheist pro-white movement for many years. There's nothing you can tell me about it, so please don't talk to me about self-hating Christians.
[QUOTE] You worship a God that was murdered by inferior trash? If he was all-knowing shouldn't he have known that it was a waste of time to spend one ounce of his attention on jews? How come he (Paul) says that since the jews rejected him (Christ) that a number of goyim must take their place in the "salvation"? Shouldn't WE GENTILES be a priority?[/QUOTE]
Like too many people, you are allowing your blind hatred of the Jews to prevent you from seeing the truth. The Jews and their activities disgust me, but if anything, Jesus Christ proved the nature of the Jews. When faced with a 100% true and honest man, they killed Him. Why do you think the Jews have been at war with Christ's people for 2,000 years and still continue to subvert and supress true Christianity?
I understand that you must come around in your own terms and time. I'm not going to force you or anyone to become a Christian. Nor can I persuade you by instilling anger. In the meantime, I will pray for you.
I only hope that you eventually see that trying to recreate lost religions in the cause of racial survival is futile. Christ is the only answer for our people.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-20 00:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]I understand that you must come around in your own terms and time. I'm not going to force you or anyone to become a Christian. Nor can I persuade you by instilling anger. In the meantime, I will pray for you.
I only hope that you eventually see that trying to recreate lost religions in the cause of racial survival is futile. Christ is the only answer for our people. [/QUOTE]
Typical BS from anti-white Christians. You're so superior, oh yes. Let me kiss your feet.
2003-12-20 01:59 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasTypical BS from anti-white Christians. You're so superior, oh yes. Let me kiss your feet.[/QUOTE]
Me anti-white? ROTFLOL! I've been called some things before, but never anti-white.
First, you say I'm a self-hating Christian. Now I'm an anti-white Christian. Is that a promotion or a demotion? The fact is you know nothing about me.
I had you pegged from the beginning. You're loath Christians and your so-called "historical" article on Christ was exactly what I said it was - nothing but anti-christ propaganda. I'll still say a prayer for you.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-20 16:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Me anti-white? ROTFLOL! I've been called some things before, but never anti-white.
First, you say I'm a self-hating Christian. Now I'm an anti-white Christian. Is that a promotion or a demotion? The fact is you know nothing about me.
I had you pegged from the beginning. You're loath Christians and your so-called "historical" article on Christ was exactly what I said it was - nothing but anti-christ propaganda. I'll still say a prayer for you. [/QUOTE]
The fact is that you hate white culture and refer to it as "demonic."
2003-12-20 17:44 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasThe fact is that you hate white culture and refer to it as "demonic."[/QUOTE]
You're delusional. I was referring to ANY kind of paganism as demonic. You must think the paganism = white culture. Hinduism is paganism. Voodoo is paganism. Neither of those are white.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-21 16:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]You're delusional. I was referring to ANY kind of paganism as demonic. You must think the paganism = white culture. Hinduism is paganism. Voodoo is paganism. Neither of those are white.
Regards, Wild Bill[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as paganism. They are religions. You called Odinists, etc., "devil-worshippers." Don't lie. You hate the religions of White cultures.
2003-12-21 18:48 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasEmpire and technology are not exactly concepts that were created by Christianity. The suggestion of the "failure of paganism" is laughable. What was its intentions? What is paganism?
It is my culture. Magick is a successful method of attaining Godhead.
What is neo-paganism?
Where did it say that Jesus was a [I]fake[/I]? That is the problem with you people. It said that he is based on other Gods and mythologies.[/QUOTE]
This discussion illustrates precisely the problems that arise when generalizer-tokens like "paganism", "godhead","religion", "creed", "belief", "faith" -- holding Actual Proper Names! in reserve -- ("G-d", "YHWY", "God", "Allah", "Wotan", "Krishna", "Zoroaster", even "Jesus Christ") -- for personal, private or delegated priestly ceremonial ritual uses -- are predicated on (if I may say so) uncritically (without a "critique", in Kant's sense of conceptually justified use).
This is to discuss links between predicates without first clearing, or agreeing upon, firm criteria of application. (I'm an old philo prof...). Not that these links can be determined by on-the-spot conventions, if continuity with those who have communicated before is to be maintained. What they are goes to a particular Spirit, which completed humanity in the single instance. It joined what is properly meant by "God", in the era of Christian usage. (Pisces.) It began by defining itself theologically, existentially, humanly against the Jews.
This particular Spirit built up, and overflowed into the Renaissance in Italy around mid-Millenium II a.d. The side of the human emerged with Greek balance on Roman culture with New Impulse. This was the Third Person of the Trinity incarnating. The historical impulse from the Light that was in, around, of, Jesus, whether clearly identified continuous individual body undergoing every story recited later in memory; or, Leader of a specific Brotherhood, Essene or otherwise; was attested to have reappeared on Pentacost in Act 2, when the disciples were gathered together "of one accord". That is what spread throughout Europe as Western civilization -- not that there would not have been some sort of historical development without it, but that is the one of the actual Age of Pisces, that brought the Spirit from which America was to be born half-a-time later (circa l775). This is the Historical interpretaion of the Trinity. The Light really is the light, for which Einstein may have had the mathematical formula, but has a grammar that relates to Quality in human experience, which is not mathematical but metaphysical (whether he knew it or not). Reality, as we encounter it (unless, of course, one is hooked up to the Almighty, direct -- channlin' the Big Guy) occurs for each one "on the token side" of sign-use. The textual (=set-theortical; mathematical) is merely the formulated implication schema posited by measurement-accuracy in communication, etc..
What has flooded through the legacy of the Enlightnment as a psychohistorical wave-front distributed through modern science (explaining the causal laws that connect private individual experience/Quality content to other's through sign-use processing conditions ("the common anatomical preparation"), namely, the works of this Spirit, became psychologically concentrated into a special, separate-and-distinct "re-birth in Christ" experience, mediated by the great Protestant preachers and reformers. It was the idea of The Word made flesh without ceasing to be The Word (and becoming merely The Penile - sublimated). It went with the radical notion of Free Will: a man's destiny, ultimate fate as an individual, is determined by himself, through specific inner acts, by grace, in response to this Word rightly preached. Not by law. This inner Energy "waters" the roots, branches, leaves of the Tree of Life thaty flourished briefly on these shores we call American. Pagan, Gypsy, Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant Christian all co-existing side-by-side -- two times, IMHO: in Bohemia, before the 30 years war broke out in 1618; and Woodstock. It was OK, but "with truth so far off, what good would it do?" The point is, its not nothing. It's everything, at least everything created from that kind of free man and woman. And it is systematically, automatically attacked, most viciously by Judas traitors predicating precisely on its grand, holy name to Kill For Zion.
[B]"Its not the text; its the token. All text is Pre-text. Any public use of "God" is public pubic display.[/B] yo
2003-12-21 19:06 | User Profile
TexasAnarch,
Very well-spoken!
2003-12-21 20:45 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasThere is no such thing as paganism. They are religions. You called Odinists, etc., "devil-worshippers." Don't lie. You hate the religions of White cultures.[/QUOTE]
I said ALL paganism is basically demonic and that includes Odinism. You speak of Godhead and just last night I came upon a comment that pertains to that subject:
"As the false one tempts miserable man with hopes of Godhead, leading him up to as great a height of arrogance as himself, he hurls him down into a pit of destruction just as deep." - John Damascus, And Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.
Its not a matter of my hating any kind of paganism. My feelings are not nearly so strong as hate. I merely recognize these to be false religions encouraged by the devil to keep people from Christ.
Look, its an indisputable historical fact that the white race acheived its pinacle of power and dominance as Christians. You can't disagree with that, so why do you want to resurrect failed ancient religions that cannot save us?
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-21 23:14 | User Profile
As to Christianity's origins, I'm sure this is of some interest.
"Still, one fact must be stressed. Christianity has had a strong tie to Hellenism from the beginning, in that it was spread by means of Greek. The oldest Christian writings, including the authentic letters of Paul, were written in Greek. Whatever may have been the linguistic form of oral tradition and underlying sources of the canonical Gospels, these, too, were composed in Greek. The choice is not limited to the mission of the "Apostle to the Gentiles". It is inherent in the usage of communities that produced the texts that were later canonized as a cherent set, the New Testament. The Jews of the Diaspora were speakers of Greek. They adopted the koine, the language of communication throughout the Orient from the time of Alexander's conquests. Galilee was strongly marked by Hellenistic civilization, and even in Judea, Greek was widespread. --"Hellenism and Christianity" from "Greek thought : a guide to classical knowledge" edited by Jacques Brunschwig and Geoffrey E.R. Lloyd, with the collaboration of Pierre Pellegrin ; translated under the direction of Catherine Porter. page 858
Whatever "Jewish" origins Christianity had, it diminished by the time of St. Paul. Scholars also talk about the heavy Greek influence in Luke's account of the Gospels. The most historians have ever been able to prove is that Christianity grew out of Hellenic Judaism, that is a form of Judaism more influenced by Greek thinking than by the Talmud. Christianity had origins in European thinking from the very beginning as the above quote shows. In other words, Christianity is as European in origin as any form of paganism.
2003-12-22 01:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]God loves you and sent His Son to die to take the punishment for your sins -- which, by the way, you couldn't help committing because your ancestors sinned, but which you're morally responsible for anyway.[/QUOTE]
Well, men can't help but get hungry, so therefore they should not ask for forgiveness when they steal food?
2003-12-22 01:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]As to Christianity's origins, I'm sure this is of some interest.
Whatever "Jewish" origins Christianity had, it diminished by the time of St. Paul. Scholars also talk about the heavy Greek influence in Luke's account of the Gospels. The most historians have ever been able to prove is that Christianity grew out of Hellenic Judaism, that is a form of Judaism more influenced by Greek thinking than by the Talmud. Christianity had origins in European thinking from the very beginning as the above quote shows. In other words, Christianity is as European in origin as any form of paganism.[/QUOTE]
Finally, someone speaking some sense on the Jewish issue. People should understand that Christianity owes as much to the non-Jewish theologians and writers as to the Apostles. Since the Bible is God's revealed Word, it took some time before it was more thoroughly understood by men. This is why its often easy to misunderstand the Bible simply by a cursory reading. Twenty layman can read a verse and get twenty different meanings, because they don't understand or take into account the context of the verse. Hence we constantly see non-Christians and antagonists of Christianity plucking some Bible verse out of context, assuming they understand it, and then trying to create a useless argument on this erroneous understanding. Such arguments really don't even deserve a response.
Much of what we understand today about Christian theology, doctrine, and spirituality came about only through the study and prayer of the great theologians of the Church. They made many things understandable which aren't apparent in the Scriptures. And these people were NOT Jews at all. In fact, from the beginning, the church of Jerusalem was the smallest of the early churches specifically because it was made up of the small number of Jews who had been converted. Jerusalem was never influential, the leading roles belonged to Constantinople and Rome. After about 200, the number of Jewish converts was virtually non-existant. I'll mention here just for perspective that that the Bible wasn't put into its general form until about the year 400.
The Bible says the sceptre would be taken from the Jews and handed to the Gentiles. That is exactly what happened. So to speak of Christianity as a "Jewish" religion or a sect of Judaism is false. The only Jewish religion today is Rabbinic Judaism, which is the direct distillation of Pharaseeism, the religion that Christ constantly preached against.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-22 02:15 | User Profile
wild_bill, your arrogant words and treatment of non-christians as filth demonstrates to the masses what is seriously wrong with christianity. That is why your numbers are falling off so rapidly, and the revival of the old ways is growing twice even three times as rapidly as christianity's decline. If you want to hate me and your heritage, that's fine, but don't expect people to bow to you at the tone of your voice. Your reality is merely perception based not on facts but on some fantastic emotions.
2003-12-22 09:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Braveheart]Well, men can't help but get hungry, so therefore they should not ask for forgiveness when they steal food?[/QUOTE]
That's a very good question everyone should ask themselves, Braveheart.
2003-12-22 10:47 | User Profile
QUOTE=Mithraswild_bill, your arrogant words and treatment of non-christians as filth demonstrates to the masses what is seriously wrong with christianity. That is why your numbers are falling off so rapidly, and the revival of the old ways is growing twice even three times as rapidly as christianity's decline. If you want to hate me and your heritage, that's fine, but don't expect people to bow to you at the tone of your voice. Your reality is merely perception based not on facts but on some fantastic emotions.[/QUOTE]
You are very good at putting words in my mouth. I never said non-Christians are "filth." And I specifically said I didn't hate you or your pagan false religion. I actually prayed for you both times I said I would. I wasn't saying that just to be cute. My attitude is more like that of a person in a lifeboat trying to save my comrades from ultimate death. You can call that arrogance, but I call it doing the right thing.
In any case, maybe your arguments are so weak that you think that by distorting my comments you may influence someone. I notice you never address any of the points I raise, but just keep claiming that I hate my heritage.
Not everything we whites have done in the past has been good. To not criticize such things in the name of "heritage" is in itself immoral.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-22 15:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE] said ALL paganism is basically demonic and that includes Odinism. [/QUOTE]
What does "demonic" mean to you?
Is the Talmud not "demonic"? Are some christian sects not "demonic"?
The only "real" christians word for word are the Bibelforscher or Zeugen Jehovas (Jehovah's witnesses in English?) which are pacifistic and idiotic.
Every useful christian tradition which was ever established in Europa WAS NOT only taken from the new testament and not word for word but with some interpretation for the needs of the community.
Thats what especially some Calvinist sects in USrael never understood.
The Christian religion in its PURE FORM from the New Testament is partly a weak and destructive religion!
This moral is poisoning the western societies and folks from the 2 victories of USrael in the last great wars.
No matter what you say, there are just 2 possibilities if you want to save the white folks and any higher culture in the west: To find a new moral and ideology, probably even religion, or take an old one, or an older form of christendom of Europe. What the average American understand of Christendom is just poison for the white races and the world.
Think logical and if you use your emotions use it for good things and not for fantasies which made the white man sick!
2003-12-22 16:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]You are very good at putting words in my mouth. [/QUOTE]
You're very good at putting on an act.
2003-12-23 01:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]What does "demonic" mean to you?[/QUOTE]
Generally, anything that antagonistic towards or attempts to undermine Christianity, but especially the occult and various forms of paganism. Some are worse than others, obviously.
[QUOTE] Is the Talmud not "demonic"? Are some christian sects not "demonic"?[/QUOTE]
I definitely think there's demonic influence in the Talmud. The Kaballah is certainly demonic.
You will have to be more specific about which Christian sects you mean. Most are simply money-making cults or operating under false or incorrect teaching.
[QUOTE] The only "real" christians word for word are the Bibelforscher or Zeugen Jehovas (Jehovah's witnesses in English?) which are pacifistic and idiotic.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how you determine that these people are "real" Christians. Pacifistic and idiotic don't describe real Christianity.
Jehovah Witnesses is a cult based on a false teaching.
[QUOTE] Every useful christian tradition which was ever established in Europa WAS NOT only taken from the new testament and not word for word but with some interpretation for the needs of the community.[/QUOTE]
I'm not a fundamentalist. I don't take the entire Bible literally.
[QUOTE] Thats what especially some Calvinist sects in USrael never understood.[/QUOTE]
I'm not a Calvanist. I'll let them answer that.
[QUOTE] The Christian religion in its PURE FORM from the New Testament is partly a weak and destructive religion![/QUOTE]
That "pure form" as determined by your private interpretation?
[QUOTE] No matter what you say, there are just 2 possibilities if you want to save the white folks and any higher culture in the west: To find a new moral and ideology, probably even religion, or take an old one, or an older form of christendom of Europe. What the average American understand of Christendom is just poison for the white races and the world.
Think logical and if you use your emotions use it for good things and not for fantasies which made the white man sick![/QUOTE]
The fact is our race reached it pinacle of power and influence as a Christian people. I'm not even being specific about the particular version of Christianity. And we have been going downhill almost in direct proportion to the amount of subversion within Christianity and a falling away of our people in pursuit of silliness, instant gratification, and materialism.
Blaming traditional Christianity is simply putting the blame where it doesn't belong. The bulk of the responsibility lies with ourselves. That's something many people want to avoid. Its a common human reaction, but it doesn't help us.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-23 01:57 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasYou're very good at putting on an act.[/QUOTE]
And what act is that?
While you're at it, please tell me what significant things you have done for the betterment and protection of our people. Maybe you're a much better man than I. Maybe you have done some great things for our people. I would like to know.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-23 03:26 | User Profile
Western Christianity itself went through a long period of syncretism with pre-Christian beliefs and practices.
2003-12-23 06:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich]Western Christianity itself went through a long period of syncretism with pre-Christian beliefs and practices.[/QUOTE]
True indeed. There was also a glorious period in the early Christian era when proper pagans like Celsus thought Christianity was cultic lunacy and Jehovah was a demon for the weak-minded to conjure while stumbling through drunken orgies.
Celsus is dead but Christianity never really should have given up its bad reputation. It only survives now in snake-handling cults and breakaway Mormons who practice polygamy. A pity.
2003-12-23 06:49 | User Profile
I have heard of these!! Crazy Americans.
Snake Handlers Hang On in Appalachian Churches
Brian Handwerk for National Geographic News April 7, 2003
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. ââ¬âMark 16:17-18 For serpent-handling churches, these verses hold no symbolismââ¬âthey are the literal words of the Lord that have inspired worshiping believers to handle poisonous snakes for a hundred years.
Serpent handling is always controversial and in many areas illegal, yet it shows no signs of disappearing from its traditional home in Appalachia, the mountainous regions of the Southeastern United States stretching from Georgia to Pennsylvania.
Copperheads are one of the snakes commonly used in serpent-handling religious ceremonies of Appalachia.
Junior G. McCormick is a serpent-handling pastor from Georgia. He explains that, for him, handling snakes is simply following the gospel to the letter. "Other folks don't do this because their churches don't believe, or it's just something they're scared of," he said. "They come to that scripture but want to jump over that part because it's a deadly thing."
(Practitioners, or self-described sign-followers, prefer the term serpent-handling to snake-handling noting that they incorporate poisonous reptiles not common snakes into religious worship.)
The practice began in the early 1900s. Its popularity has waxed and waned through the years. According to Ralph Hood, a professor of social psychology and the psychology of religion at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, serpent handling is currently at a fairly low ebb of popularity. Such fluctuations are characteristic of a faith that persists throughout Appalachia. . .
[url]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehandlers.html[/url]
2003-12-23 10:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]True indeed. There was also a glorious period in the early Christian era when proper pagans like Celsus thought Christianity was cultic lunacy and Jehovah was a demon for the weak-minded to conjure while stumbling through drunken orgies. [/QUOTE]
This was probably back in the days when people spread rumors that Christians were cannibals who kidnapped people to be eaten during Communion.
2003-12-23 18:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]I'm not a fundamentalist. I don't take the entire Bible literally. [/QUOTE]
Belief that Jesus walked the earth, was crucified and came back to life to ascend into heaven is taking the bible literally, and hence, fundamentalism. Obviously, you refuse to even consider my ideas in this thread. You are a complete fundamentalist who refers to all non-christians as demonic. That is why I said you are putting on an act. You know damn well what I'm talking about but you attack my ideas instead of seriously considering or discussing them with me.
You accuse me as being anti-christian when in reality I simply have a different view of what it means to me.
2003-12-23 18:50 | User Profile
Some things are open to interpretation in the New Testament, but many arent. The whitnesses of Jehova take all literally and are as much as possible on the pure Christian ground. Same true for some other Christian sects.
But these sects are as weak as they are Christian.
Only the adapted form of Christendom was partly useful for the Occident. The problem was that Christendom wasnt able to survive with its irrationality in a more or less rationalized world.
There should have been a new interpretation with the will to keep all USEFUL tradition or to invent a new effective and collectiv ideology. Both happened in many parts of the European world, but in US and GB in couldnt win but these are the winners of the last 2 centuries. Thats the problem.
Christians in the US should re-invent Christianity and make it more rational or forget it.
2003-12-24 01:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]Some things are open to interpretation in the New Testament, but many arent. The whitnesses of Jehova take all literally and are as much as possible on the pure Christian ground. Same true for some other Christian sects.
But these sects are as weak as they are Christian.
[/QUOTE]
You are obviously talking about some insignificant, fringe sect that supports some obscure simple-minded interpretation of the Scriptures. As if they have any authority or credibility to define the teachings of Christ. Maybe I should also ask "Rev. Sun Yung Moon" for his interpretation? LOL.
No seriously, if you want to learn about Christianity, read the Church Fathers and theologians, don't waste time with such oddballs as these "witnesses of Jehova.".
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-24 01:24 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasBelief that Jesus walked the earth, was crucified and came back to life to ascend into heaven is taking the bible literally, and hence, fundamentalism. [/QUOTE]
Here again, you are putting words into my mouth. Yes, Christ walked the earth. Yes, He was crucified. But when He was resurrected, it wasn't like He was before. It wasn't like He was the walking dead. This is what you THINK I believe. There are different opinions on how Christ manifested Himself.
[QUOTE] Obviously, you refuse to even consider my ideas in this thread. You are a complete fundamentalist who refers to all non-christians as demonic. That is why I said you are putting on an act. You know damn well what I'm talking about but you attack my ideas instead of seriously considering or discussing them with me.[/QUOTE]
What's there to discuss? You think recreating some pagan religion from 2,000 years ago will save the white race. I say that's a waste of time and the only way out of the mess is to return to true Christianity. Am I correct in assuming you are 100% opposed to that?
[QUOTE] You accuse me as being anti-christian when in reality I simply have a different view of what it means to me.[/QUOTE]
Ok, what does Christianity mean to you? Please don't give me someone else's words, lets have yours.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-24 04:48 | User Profile
An old story about Julian, while we are on the subject. It was Julian that confiscated all the money and land of the Christians of Edessa. He justified it by citing the Christian view that the poor will ascend more easily to the Kingdom of Heaven than the rich. Thus, he was able to argue that he was doing the Christians a favour by improving their chances of admission of the heavenly kingdom!
2003-12-24 11:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]What's there to discuss? You think recreating some pagan religion from 2,000 years ago will save the white race. I say that's a waste of time and the only way out of the mess is to return to true Christianity. Am I correct in assuming you are 100% opposed to that? [/QUOTE] How is mulling over what Christ may have said or may not have said or how he may have ascended or may not have ascended going to "save the white race" as you put it. I didn't know that was the goal of Christianity. The Churches definitely do not have anything remotely similar to such a goal; in fact their goal is the exact opposite. You are talking about a political matter not a spiritual one. You don't send in a plumber to do the work of a king's army.
The trouble with Christian Nationalism is that you spend more time worrying about whether so and so will let you say a prayer in this public building or not which has absolutely no effect on our current state. Then you want to baptise and dictate how everyone conducts himself if you are to "ally" with them in a single cause. Well I am not going to convert. I am not going to work to restore Christianity. Why would I? It has nothing to do with White Nationalism. And the truth is that if you had the power you would probably either burn pagans at the stake or ban paganism.
2003-12-24 14:10 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasHow is mulling over what Christ may have said or may not have said or how he may have ascended or may not have ascended going to "save the white race" as you put it. I didn't know that was the goal of Christianity. The Churches definitely do not have anything remotely similar to such a goal; in fact their goal is the exact opposite. You are talking about a political matter not a spiritual one. You don't send in a plumber to do the work of a king's army.[/QUOTE]
Conservative Christians have a higher birthrate and more stable families than the general white population - and that includes white nationalists. Traditional Christian women are happy to be housewives and raise kids. Typically, there are many such women in the churches available for marriage. So on that very basic biological level Christians are helping our race by encouraging traditional womanhood, families having more kids and raising them in a decent environment.
Also, the traditional Christian churches categorically condemn feminism, abortion, homosexuality, materialism, etc. All of which are things that corrupt the society and harms our people.
BTW, I have yet to see an interracial couple in any church I've ever attended. I'm not saying they don't exist somewhere, but its very rare.
When people post stories about some wacko liberal Christian group importing Somalis to the US, people are outraged and blame all Christians. But few people want to hear the POSITIVE things that many traditional Christians do.
I don't know what other Christians are doing in this area, but the Orthodox Church, specifically, devotes much energy to relief programs to white countries. Also the Orthodox sponsor many European ethnic and cultural festivals.
Orthodox orphanages also help abandoned white kids live decently: [url]http://www.oca.org/pages/events/2003/08.August/0803KyivUKRAINE-PrimatialVisit/0806ChernovtsyUKRAINE-Monastery2/index.html[/url]
2003-12-24 18:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Also, the traditional Christian churches categorically condemn feminism, abortion, homosexuality, materialism, etc. All of which are things that corrupt the society and harms our people. [/QUOTE]
Correct me if I am wrong but the traditional churches which you speak of are a slim minority. I have yet to find any traditional church which openly talks about a White or Racial Nationalism.
But why attempt to accomplish a political goal through a spiritual or religious movement? That doesn't make sense. The government is where they make the laws not the churches.
I don't think a man's religion should be cluttered with political issues. Politics is material(istic). And I don't practice the old spiritual paths for political reasons. These two things are distinctly different and should be kept separate in my humble opinion.
2003-12-24 18:59 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasCorrect me if I am wrong but the traditional churches which you speak of are a slim minority. I have yet to find any traditional church which openly talks about a White or Racial Nationalism.[/QUOTE]
Why does any church have to talk openly about White Nationalism? We have dozens of supposedly White Nationalist organizations that talk, talk, talk, about White Nationalism 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but actually do little or nothing that's actually constructive.
If the church is supporting things which help us, it doesn't make any difference to me if they talk about it.
[QUOTE] But why attempt to accomplish a political goal through a spiritual or religious movement? That doesn't make sense. The government is where they make the laws not the churches. [/QUOTE]
I've come to the conclusion that our problem is spiritual. That's why nothing we do politically ever works and things just keep getting worse.
2003-12-24 19:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Why does any church have to talk openly about White Nationalism? We have dozens of supposedly White Nationalist organizations that talk, talk, talk, about White Nationalism 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but actually do little or nothing that's actually constructive..[/QUOTE]
Our Movement is called RACIAL Nationalism for a reason.
[QUOTE]If the church is supporting things which help us, it doesn't make any difference to me if they talk about it.[/QUOTE]
Because I could care less about feminism, gay marriage, abortion and materialism when all these non-whites are flooding into my homeland. That is the issue. Nothing else seriously matters.
[QUOTE]I've come to the conclusion that our problem is spiritual. That's why nothing we do politically ever works and things just keep getting worse[/QUOTE]
Then it is no sense discussing it with you. That is a losing approach to the matter. A priest does not make laws.
2003-12-24 19:34 | User Profile
People Celebrated December 25th Three Centuries Before Christ's Birth Say Archaeologists By David Keys Archaeology Correspondent The Independent - UK 12-24-03
Archeologists say they have traced the origins of the first Christmas to be celebrated on 25 December, 300 years before the birth of Christ. The original event marked the consecration of the ancient world's largest sun god statue, the 34m tall, 200 ton Colossus of Rhodes.
It has long been known that 25 December was not the real date of Christ's birth and that the decision to turn it into Jesus's birthday was made by Constantine, the Roman Emperor, in the early 4th century AD. But experts believe the origins of that decision go back to 283 BC, when, in Rhodes, the winter solstice occurred at about sunrise on 25 December.
The event was preserved by academics on Rhodes or in Alexandria, and seems to have been passed to Caesar by the Hellenistic Egyptian scientists, who advised him on his calendrical reforms.
The date was chosen because the emperor seems to have believed that the Roman sun god and Christ were virtually one and the same, and the sun's birthday had been decreed as 25 December some 50 years earlier by one of Constantine's predecessors, the Emperor Aurelian. He, in turn, seems to have chosen 25 December because, ever since Julius Caesar's calendar reforms of 46 BC, that date had been fixed as the official winter solstice, even though the real date for the solstice in Caesar's time was 23 December.
Dr Alaric Watson, one of the British historians involved in the current research and author of the major book on the period, Aurelian and the Third Century, said: "Constantine's choice of 25 December as the day on which to celebrate the birth of his divine patron, Christ, must be viewed in terms of the tradition on which Aurelian had drawn and which may well have originated in the celebration of the winter solstice at Rhodes some six centuries earlier.
"Constantine clearly saw his divine patron, initially Sol Invictus but later Christ, in much the same way as Aurelian had done. The imagery of Christ, like that of the ruler cults of the Hellenistic and Roman worlds, owed much to solar theology."
Jesus's real date of birth is not known, although various different pre-4th century traditions and computations put it either in the January to March period or in November.
é 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
[url]http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=475919[/url]
2003-12-25 21:38 | User Profile
I think that history confirms the failure of paganism. After all, if the pagan gods had been more powerful, Christianity wouldn't have taken over Europe and made the white race the masters of the world
The white race was hardly the masters of the world during the heyday of Christianity.
Conservative Christians have a higher birthrate and more stable families than the general white population - and that includes white nationalists. Traditional Christian women are happy to be housewives and raise kids. Typically, there are many such women in the churches available for marriage. So on that very basic biological level Christians are helping our race by encouraging traditional womanhood, families having more kids and raising them in a decent environment.
I associate "traditional Christianity" with Catholicism. Spain and Italy, where religion is stronger than it is in the North, have amongst the lowest birthrates in all of Europe.
Also, the traditional Christian churches categorically condemn feminism, abortion, homosexuality, materialism, etc. All of which are things that corrupt the society and harms our people.
I notice you speak of 'traditional Christianity.' Can you give us a definition, bitte? Pope Alexander VI impregnated his own daughter you know.
I say that's a waste of time and the only way out of the mess is to return to true Christianity. Am I correct in assuming you are 100% opposed to that?
Define 'true Christianity.' Does 'true Christianity' include the sale of indulgences?
2003-12-26 09:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Christians believe in the Bible for precisely the same reasons that Muslims believe in the Koran. Christians reject the Koran for the precisely the same reasons that Muslims reject the Christian Bible. It's just that simple. The adherents of each faith are certain that their religion is the correct one and all alternate faiths are false. Even Jim Jones' followers and, more recently, the members of the Heaven's Gate cult had enough faith to die for their beliefs. It's funny how religion can have such a profound effect on the mind.[/QUOTE]
I agree with every word of that.
But this is only a testament to the astonishing power of religion, and to the utter hopelessness of somehow "rising above" our need for it. Your conclusion seems to be that we therefore can and should do without relgion, which simply does not follow from this premise.
The question is not, again as you seem to imply (please correct me if I'm wrong), whether we will have a religion in the first instance. The ONLY question that stands before is which religion we will have. You cannot avoid it, for it is pre-programmed into your very DNA. Men are religious because Evolution designed them that way. And that's really about all that can be said about that.
As I've written here before, you might as well ask a bird to stop flying or a gazelle to stop running. You might as well ask your computer to run without an operating system. This whole notion that we can somehow do without religion is a transparent non-starter.
Let's accept that fact of our existence, and move on to practical applications.
Look at history. The greatest atheists of the world were invariably the most oppressive moralists - but upon what was based their morality? Lenin? Mao? Pol Pot?
I always get a charge out of scientists who denigrate Faith but then tell us about how we need to "see ourselves as part of the universe" and "respect the Earth" and other such nostrums that just exude FAITH in something. They need to repeat Philosophy 101 (they probably never took it in the first place).
Since we can't avoid the question of having a religion, we must choose. And given the fact that all "culture" flows of necessity from "cult", I suggest that we choose carefully and deliberately, for our choice will affect profoundly every aspect of our culture, our history, our lives, our fate.
Traditional Christianity produces a certain kind of culture, and Islam another.
Nazism produces a certain kind of culture, and Christianity another.
Marxism produces a certain kind of culture, and Buddhism quite another.
Now, Paganism gave us many great things, but would you seriously want to live in a culture that had no defense against the infectious cultural memes of slavery, child sacrifice, infanticide, and Lord only knows what else as science advances even as Christian moral restraints are replaced with Pagan freedom?
I don't. I choose Christ and His Church, and thereby lay claim to the entirety of Christendom's heritage and consciously choose to constrain myself and my culture within its confines. In rejecting Christ, you also implicitly reject 2,000 years of culture and moral development - the greatest and most moral culture that the world has ever seen. You unwittingly invite a Pagan Brave New World to be born. And it is being born all around us, precisely because so many of us have unthinkingly knocked out from under ourselves the Tradition that forms the mighty plinth of the entire edifice we call the West.
I won't throw the Faith of my Fathers away as you would do so blithely, as to do so would be to throw them away. It would truly mean to heed Juliette's siren call to "forget thy father and refuse thy name." And our national destiny would pass from our hands.
I urge you to reconsider.
Walter
2003-12-26 16:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]INow, Paganism gave us many great things, but would you seriously want to live in a culture that had no defense against the infectious cultural memes of slavery, child sacrifice, infanticide, and Lord only knows what else as science advances even as Christian moral restraints are replaced with Pagan freedom? [/QUOTE]
Again, the problem is that religion is not designed to be interpreted by politics. Christianity is no defense against those things which you mentioned above. There are no "Christian moral restraints" anymore. Christianity has more than its share of pedophilia, child abuse, infanticide, slavery, etc.
And to wild_bill, Christ never said anything bad about Pagans. He was actually called a pagan, a sinner and blasphemer by the jewish elders. His entire mission was to revolt against the Jewish Elders, reform corrupt Judaism and restore it back to the ideals of its founders, the 12 tribes of israel. I don't see what that has to do with Gentile Pagans. I do believe that Christianity has become infested with corrupt jewish thought and needs a Messiah 2 to revolt against it and reform it once again.
2003-12-26 18:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich]The white race was hardly the masters of the world during the heyday of Christianity.[/QUOTE]
We were in much better shape than now, wouldn't you agree?
[QUOTE] I associate "traditional Christianity" with Catholicism. Spain and Italy, where religion is stronger than it is in the North, have amongst the lowest birthrates in all of Europe.[/QUOTE]
I was speaking of traditional Catholicism and Protestantism, and, also, Orthodox which is always traditional ( I don't know that any "liberal" Orthodox organization that exists). I know that the Orthodox consider birth control by married couples to be a sin unless there's been a dispensation of sorts given by their priest. Such exemptions would be granted if more children would be an unreasonable economic burden or cause medical dangers. This doesn't mean that a couple would use birth control in order to afford a new car. It goes without saying that newlyweds would, except in the most unusual circumstances, be committing sin for using birth control. That is the Orthodox policy as I have read it and I think that's very similar to that of the Roman Catholics. I doubt whether traditional Protestants would disagree with it.
Now, if countries people normally associate with "traditional" Christianity are not producing children, its obviously because the people are NOT behaving in compliance with the traditional teachings of Christianity.
When I spoke of conservative Christians having a higher birthrate, I was referring to the US, where that has been my experience.
Any couple who abides by the traditional teachings of Christianity will have larger families than what is considered the norm today. That is almost unavoidable.
[QUOTE] I notice you speak of 'traditional Christianity.' Can you give us a definition, bitte? Pope Alexander VI impregnated his own daughter you know. [/QUOTE]
I think I gave the examples.
Christian leaders are sinners just like the rest of us. They don't always behave as Christians should. The fact that a high official committed a serious sin is really irrelevent to our discussion, since he obviously wasn't behaving in accordance with Christian teachings.
[QUOTE] Define 'true Christianity.' Does 'true Christianity' include the sale of indulgences?[/QUOTE]
Since I'm not a Catholic, that question doesn't apply to me. The Orthodox Church, of which I belong, doesn't sell indulgences. But regardless, that practice, has nothing to do with the issues at hand.
-
2003-12-26 18:47 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasOur Movement is called RACIAL Nationalism for a reason.
So what does that have to do with what church one goes to? Why does a church have to discuss white nationalism?
[QUOTE] Because I could care less about feminism, gay marriage, abortion and materialism when all these non-whites are flooding into my homeland. That is the issue. Nothing else seriously matters.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Its all related to the overall breakdown of our society. The race problem is just one facet of a larger situation. Look, one reason we have an immigration problem is because whites are not reproducing. This is because of abortion, feminism, and materialism. Don't blame it all on the non-whites, since if every white woman was married, off birth control, and having kids, we would be physically pushing the mestizos back across the border.
Try to explain this to the women in the pro-white movement. Most don't want to hear it. They want to be feminists more than constructively help the situation.
-
2003-12-26 20:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]I disagree. Its all related to the overall breakdown of our society. The race problem is just one facet of a larger situation. Look, one reason we have an immigration problem is because whites are not reproducing. This is because of abortion, feminism, and materialism. Don't blame it all on the non-whites, since if every white woman was married, off birth control, and having kids, we would be physically pushing the mestizos back across the border.[/QUOTE]
There are no reasonable grounds to your thinking here.
[QUOTE]So what does that have to do with what church one goes to? Why does a church have to discuss white nationalism?[/QUOTE]
You made the claim that Traditional Christianity was a major help to our cause. I stated that this couldn't be so because they have not ever made the first step to even talk about a racial nationalist theory.
[QUOTE]Try to explain this to the women in the pro-white movement. Most don't want to hear it. They want to be feminists more than constructively help the situation.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that non-whites are flooding in to our country. That is because of lax laws passed by idiot liberals and the refusal of the government to defend the borders. It has absolutely nothing to do with feminism or birth rates. Even if all non-whites were driven out of our country I would still think that the nation is overpopulated.
2003-12-26 21:29 | User Profile
We were in much better shape than now, wouldn't you agree?
Not really. The colonies did not even exist. Iberia was in the hands of the Moslems, as was Sicily for quite some time. The Balkans were later overrun by the Ottomans as well. Much of Europe was under the direct rule of Moslems and nonwhites and the life of the average European was short, brutal, and miserable. The Black Death wiped out over a third of Europe's population in the 14th century because medicine was so backwards at the time. Then, of course, there was the Hundred Years' War which laid waste to France.
I was speaking of traditional Catholicism and Protestantism, and, also, Orthodox which is always traditional ( I don't know that any "liberal" Orthodox organization that exists).
Traditional protestantism and traditional catholicism can mean anything. Are we talking about Calvin's theocracy in Geneva here? Luther fighting the Devil with feces? The Catholic Church sold indulgences for years just like it had heretic burned. For years the papacy itself was bought and sold.
I know that the Orthodox consider birth control by married couples to be a sin unless there's been a dispensation of sorts given by their priest. Such exemptions would be granted if more children would be an unreasonable economic burden or cause medical dangers. This doesn't mean that a couple would use birth control in order to afford a new car. It goes without saying that newlyweds would, except in the most unusual circumstances, be committing sin for using birth control. That is the Orthodox policy as I have read it and I think that's very similar to that of the Roman Catholics. I doubt whether traditional Protestants would disagree with it.
It seems to me that you are associating traditional protestantism and traditional catholicism with Christianity prior to the 1960s. Is that correct?
Now, if countries people normally associate with "traditional" Christianity are not producing children, its obviously because the people are NOT behaving in compliance with the traditional teachings of Christianity.
I disagree. I think it has more to do with urban areas and industrialization myself. Take, for instance, the birthrate in non-Christian Japan.
When I spoke of conservative Christians having a higher birthrate, I was referring to the US, where that has been my experience.
The Mormons in Utah have a high birthrate. Do you consider the Mormons to be Christians by chance?
Any couple who abides by the traditional teachings of Christianity will have larger families than what is considered the norm today. That is almost unavoidable.
The lack of traditional Christianity does not explain the demographic problem. The birthrate in France, to name just one example, dipped in the early 20th century and was the subject of much controversy.
I think I gave the examples.
You have talked about birth control. I don't even think birth control existed until quite recently however. It was not too long ago that the papacy made an issue out of it. My point is that what you style as "traditional Christianity" would have been thought of as heresy in the Middle Ages.
Christian leaders are sinners just like the rest of us. They don't always behave as Christians should.
Who decides how Christians should behave wild bill?
The fact that a high official committed a serious sin is really irrelevent to our discussion, since he obviously wasn't behaving in accordance with Christian teachings.
Who is the ultimate authority on Christian teachings? Who is the vicar of Christ on Earth?
Since I'm not a Catholic, that question doesn't apply to me. The Orthodox Church, of which I belong, doesn't sell indulgences. But regardless, that practice, has nothing to do with the issues at hand.
Why does this practice have nothing to do with the issues at hand? What did Martin Luther think of the Papacy?
2003-12-26 23:18 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasIt has absolutely nothing to do with feminism or birth rates. [/QUOTE]
Not true, Mithras. Feminism and birth rates are symptoms of a greater, more systemic disease.
Now just treating particular symptoms is not sufficient when trying to heal sick Western Man. This is what I would term a negative approach. We must have a holistic treatment if we are to achieve success that sustains over the long-term. This is a positive approach. Just like the body, if you build up the immune system then disease is not able to take root and the body stays healthy and symptom-free.
Other folks take the negative approach, lashing out with invective at particular targets. I try to fashion OD to be a symposium for the positive approach, maintaining a dialogue that seeks to cure Western Man in his totality. Of course I believe that the cure is Western/European Christian revival in its many forms, from Russian Orthodoxy to German Lutheranism to Italian Catholicism to Scots/English/American Calvinistic Protestantism. Revive the spirit of traditional Western man and the symptoms we decry here will soon disappear.
2003-12-27 00:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Not true, Mithras. Feminism and birth rates are symptoms of a greater, more systemic disease. [/QUOTE]
Wild_bill phrased his words in such a way that leads me to believe that he thinks every woman in the folkish movement is a feminist. Firstly, I do not agree with that, and secondly, many feminists are that way because they get treated as inferior by men. The times have changed where women can go out into the world and pursue a career. The divorce rate is so high in today's society because people don't know how to form successful relationships. Overall, people have become mean-spirited, selfish, and pay little to no attention to their mates. But I don't see how this has anything to do with racial nationalism other than that non-whites exploit our faults.
I think all of our problems stem from multiracialism. All of the communist thought which produces these movements were driven by non-whites. Whites would not intentionally try to destroy their race and nation, unless they were tricked into doing so by non-whites, especially jews.
2003-12-27 02:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich] It seems to me that you are associating traditional protestantism and traditional catholicism with Christianity prior to the 1960s. Is that correct?[/QUOTE]
Not exactly. I'm using "traditional" both in a theological and morality sense and that's probably confusing. I wish there was a single word that was more accurate. But aside from the dispensational churches that aren't traditional theologically, but existed before 1960, your definition is good enough for this discussion.
[QUOTE] I disagree. I think it has more to do with urban areas and industrialization myself. Take, for instance, the birthrate in non-Christian Japan.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but they have obviously bought into the self-centered materialism and refusal to assume adult responsibility like we have here. I hear its becoming common for Japanese to live at home mooching off their parents until their 30s. The men spend most of their time lounging around playing video games. The women watch tv. Neither are interested in getting out on their own and having a family.
[QUOTE] The Mormons in Utah have a high birthrate. Do you consider the Mormons to be Christians by chance?[/QUOTE]
I would put the word Christian in quotes with regard to the Mormons for the simple reason that their organization was founded by a heretic and some of their theology is bizarre. That's not to say that there aren't good and decent people who are Mormons. I think it would be accurate to call them conservative, but not traditional.
[QUOTE] The lack of traditional Christianity does not explain the demographic problem. The birthrate in France, to name just one example, dipped in the early 20th century and was the subject of much controversy.[/QUOTE]
Birth control wasn't unknown in 1900. If nothing else, people could use the withdrawl method or simply obstain from sex. But in both cases, this would be at odds with Church teaching.
For your convenience, here's what the Church says on the issue of birth control:
"The voluntary control of birth in marriage is only permissible, according to the essence of a spiritual life, when the birth of a child will bring danger and hardship. Those who are living the spiritual life will come to the decision not to bear children only with sorrow, and will do so before God, with prayers for guidance and mercy. It will not be a decision taken lightly or for self-indulgent reasons.
According to the common teaching in the Orthodox Church, when such a decision is taken before God, the means of its implementation are arbitrary. There are, in the Orthodox opinion, no means of controlling birth in marriage which are better or more acceptable than others. All means are equally sad and distressing for those who truly love. For the Christian marriage is the one that abounds with as many new children as possible.
The abortion of an unborn child is absolutely condemned in the Orthodox Church. Clinical abortion is no means of birth control, and those who practice it for any reason at all, both the practitioners and those who request it, are punished according to the canon law of the Church with the 'penalty for murder.' (Council of Trullo, 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils)"
[QUOTE] You have talked about birth control. I don't even think birth control existed until quite recently however. It was not too long ago that the papacy made an issue out of it. My point is that what you style as "traditional Christianity" would have been thought of as heresy in the Middle Ages.[/QUOTE]
How's that?
[QUOTE] Who decides how Christians should behave wild bill? [/QUOTE]
Are you saying that some Pope's incest is somehow justifiable or morally vague?
[QUOTE] Who is the ultimate authority on Christian teachings? Who is the vicar of Christ on Earth?[/QUOTE]
Christ is the ultimate authority, but in our life we have to rely on the revelation as we have it and our best interpretation. For me its basically the Orthodox Church's Tradition and the Scriptures. In cases where these don't provide a clear teaching, one would consult a Priest or spiritual advisor to discuss the matter. One might contact his Bishop if needed.
I'll let Catholics and Protestants speak for themselves on this question.
[QUOTE] Why does this practice have nothing to do with the issues at hand? What did Martin Luther think of the Papacy?[/QUOTE]
I don't know why you keep referencing the papacy? I'm not Catholic. Besides that, I'm speaking in broad terms. My argument is not based so much in denominational differences. I think there's a number of general Christian doctrines that more or less traditional Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants agree on.
2003-12-27 03:05 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasThere are no reasonable grounds to your thinking here.
You made the claim that Traditional Christianity was a major help to our cause. I stated that this couldn't be so because they have not ever made the first step to even talk about a racial nationalist theory. [/QUOTE]
I think you are confusing talk with action. The racial nationalist groups talk about race endlessly, but in reality accomplish very little. The traditional Christian churches, OTOH, don't talk about race, but help offset the demographic deficit since they have more stable families with a higher average number of children.
-
2003-12-27 06:35 | User Profile
Not exactly. I'm using "traditional" both in a theological and morality sense and that's probably confusing. I wish there was a single word that was more accurate.
It is confusing when you use the word ââ¬Ëtraditionalââ¬â¢ for what has been known as Christian morality and theology for it has so drastically changed over the centuries. We are talking about close to 2,000 years of history here you know. This is especially true when we look at the Christianity of a fellow such as St. Paul, much less Christ himself, as opposed to men like Richard the Lionheart, John Calvin, or Pope Alexander VI. What you would probably describe as traditional Christianity morality today would have been uniformly condemned as the blackest of heresy in the Middle Ages. You may have even been lit up on stake like Girolamo Savonarola, Jean dââ¬â¢Arc, Jan Hus, or the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_at_the_stake]four million[/url] or so other convicted witches and heretics in Europe.
But aside from the dispensational churches that aren't traditional theologically, but existed before 1960, your definition is good enough for this discussion.
Hmm, Christianity prior to 1960 is most likely far to general to describe what you have in mind when you speak of ââ¬Ëtraditional Christianity.ââ¬â¢ Would you say Christianity since the foundation of the United States is more of what you have in mind? It would seem so.
Yes, but they have obviously bought into the self-centered materialism and refusal to assume adult responsibility like we have here. I hear its becoming common for Japanese to live at home mooching off their parents until their 30s. The men spend most of their time lounging around playing video games. The women watch tv. Neither are interested in getting out on their own and having a family.
Now why do you suppose this is? Is it because of a lack of traditional Christian values? Japan was never a Christian nation. Or could it possibly be that there has been a massive change in the structure of Japanââ¬â¢s economy in the last century that has given rise to new social values like materialism? Also, in the early Christian era, in the 4th century Roman Empire, there was also a substantial decline in the Roman birthrate as Christianity was on the rise. Was this because of Christian values had begun to replace pagan values or was it because of urbanization?
I would put the word Christian in quotes with regard to the Mormons for the simple reason that their organization was founded by a heretic and some of their theology is bizarre
The Mormons do have a positive birthrate, yes? Why shouldnââ¬â¢t we encourage the spread of Mormonism and polygamy in order to increase the birthrate? The Mormons seem to be pushing out more babies these days than the Catholics and Protestants I am sad to say, well, at least white Protestants and Catholics that is.
That's not to say that there aren't good and decent people who are Mormons. I think it would be accurate to call them conservative, but not traditional.
The Anabaptists, Calvinists, and Methodists started out as Christian sects too.
Birth control wasn't unknown in 1900.
It wasnââ¬â¢t unknown in the Middle Ages either. There were ways to prevent carrying a child to term but that is irrelevant to my point. The European birthrate began to fall well over a hundred years ago before contraception became widely available in the 1960s and the fact that it has continued to fall is nothing really mysterious either. Parents these days have fewer children than their ancestors for many reasons, among them: the increase in life expectancy caused by modern medicine, industrialization, the declining importance of agriculture has eliminated much of the need for large families, the consumer society we live in today that was caused by modern capitalism which as Max Weber has shown was directly caused by the Protestant work ethic.
If nothing else, people could use the withdrawl method or simply obstain from sex. But in both cases, this would be at odds with Church teaching.
Which Church is this? Also, this argument can be turned right back around on the Christians. One can argue that the decline in the birthrate was caused principally by the consumer society we live in, which is associated with massive increase in material wealth and standards of living, which was caused by modern industrial capitalism, which was caused the Protestant work ethic and Lutherââ¬â¢s conception of the calling.
For your convenience, here's what the Church says on the issue of birth control: "The voluntary control of birth in marriage is only permissible, according to the essence of a spiritual life, when the birth of a child will bring danger and hardship. Those who are living the spiritual life will come to the decision not to bear children only with sorrow, and will do so before God, with prayers for guidance and mercy. It will not be a decision taken lightly or for self-indulgent reasons. According to the common teaching in the Orthodox Church, when such a decision is taken before God, the means of its implementation are arbitrary. There are, in the Orthodox opinion, no means of controlling birth in marriage which are better or more acceptable than others. All means are equally sad and distressing for those who truly love. For the Christian marriage is the one that abounds with as many new children as possible. The abortion of an unborn child is absolutely condemned in the Orthodox Church. Clinical abortion is no means of birth control, and those who practice it for any reason at all, both the practitioners and those who request it, are punished according to the canon law of the Church with the 'penalty for murder.' (Council of Trullo, 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils)"
Once again, the European birthrate began to fall long before contraception became widely available.
How's that?
I was associating birth control in that instance with modern contraception.
Are you saying that some Pope's incest is somehow justifiable or morally vague?
Is the Pope, as the vicar of Christ on Earth, the ultimate authority of interpretation of the scriptures?
Christ is the ultimate authority, but in our life we have to rely on the revelation as we have it and our best interpretation. For me its basically the Orthodox Church's Tradition and the Scriptures. In cases where these don't provide a clear teaching, one would consult a Priest or spiritual advisor to discuss the matter. One might contact his Bishop if needed. I'll let Catholics and Protestants speak for themselves on this question.
Unfortunately, the Christians do not speak with one voice in these matters.
I don't know why you keep referencing the papacy? I'm not Catholic. Besides that, I'm speaking in broad terms. My argument is not based so much in denominational differences. I think there's a number of general Christian doctrines that more or less traditional Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants agree on.
I associate Catholicism with traditional Western Christianity. Protestantism is a much more recent phenomena.
2003-12-27 16:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]I think you are confusing talk with action. The racial nationalist groups talk about race endlessly, but in reality accomplish very little. The traditional Christian churches, OTOH, don't talk about race, but help offset the demographic deficit since they have more stable families with a higher average number of children.
-[/QUOTE]
But it isn't a baby-boom movement. It is a racial and cultural movement. To observe racial theories which influence action. WN groups do much more for the actual movement by spreading around racial theories and making folks aware of the problems of today's society.
Christians may or may not have more children, but many of these children will probably grow up to be more liberal and never have any racial nationalist theory that they support.
Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. I think overpopulation is just as damaging to society and the environment if not more than multiracialism.
2003-12-27 17:42 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasBut it isn't a baby-boom movement. It is a racial and cultural movement. To observe racial theories which influence action. WN groups do much more for the actual movement by spreading around racial theories and making folks aware of the problems of today's society. [/QUOTE]
The family is the most fundamental unit of any people's society. If familes become subverted, then a people is on the road to destruction.
How long do we keep passing books to each other? How much do we need to know about racial theories? The basics are pretty easy to understand.
BTW, are the mestizos taking over the southwest because they all have a Ph.D.-level understanding of racial theories?
-
2003-12-27 18:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Metternich]It is confusing when you use the word ‘traditional’ for what has been known as Christian morality and theology for it has so drastically changed over the centuries. We are talking about close to 2,000 years of history here you know. [/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, I had a rather long rebuttal to your posting, but for some reason when I tried to post it, this was not allow by the forum software and thus it was lost. Oh well.
-
2003-12-27 19:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]The family is the most fundamental unit of any people's society. If familes become subverted, then a people is on the road to destruction.
How long do we keep passing books to each other? How much do we need to know about racial theories? The basics are pretty easy to understand. [/QUOTE]
A movement is based on theories not babies.
[QUOTE]BTW, are the mestizos taking over the southwest because they all have a Ph.D.-level understanding of racial theories?[/QUOTE]
I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer.
2003-12-27 20:00 | User Profile
Look, wild_bill, nowhere in any Christian teaching or philosophy traditional or otherwise does it suggest that Whites have a right to their own homeland. Nowhere does it say that non-whites should leave because they are ruining our country and society. That is the bottom line. :yes:
2003-12-27 20:32 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasLook, wild_bill, nowhere in any Christian teaching or philosophy traditional or otherwise does it suggest that Whites have a right to their own homeland. Nowhere does it say that non-whites should leave because they are ruining our country and society. That is the bottom line. :yes:[/QUOTE]
Why would God creat the various races and nations only to homogenize them? Although this was only part of the Tower of Babel story, the bringing together of all people into a sort of universal society was part of it. We all know what happened there.
Nowhere in the Bible or Christian Tradition that I'm aware does it say that people are obligated to allow themselves to be dispossessed of their country. Nowhere is it said that a people must self-exterminate itself. There's nothing wrong with nations preserving themselves. OTOH, when some self-hating liberal decides that white people deserve to be displaced due to some supposed offenses against non-white races, then what the liberal is doing is making a judgement that only God can make.
Self-hate is not a Christian virtue. In fact such an attitude is sinful. Yet I would argue that these liberals who always seem to be working against the interests of their own people or nation are motivated by self-hate - by the idea that Christians don't derserve whatever good things God, in His mercy, granted us.
In general, although Christianity is mostly silent on the race issue, there's nothing in the Bible or Tradition that mandates that people are equal in ability, intellect, station in life, or physical attributes. This is what was corrected by Christ, since the Jews thought that just being born a Jew automatically made one morally superior to everyone else. But with this attitude, the Jews only became rotten.
When speaking of equality, the Scriptures mean that God does not differentiate on the basis of race or nationality. It doesn't say that God allows no differences or that we are morally obligated to eliminate all perceived inequalities.
-
2003-12-27 22:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]In general, although Christianity is mostly silent on the race issue, [/QUOTE]
:jester:
Don't waste my time with your make-believe. The Churches are not silent, they are very, very, very vocal on the race issue. They are vehemently against racism in all of its forms and demand that world peace can only be achieved through multiracialism and (foreign aid=) essentially a transfer of moneys from the White First World to the inferior non-white third world. The Church hierarchy are so blind to reality and the problems that exist today and in the future that is beyond baffling.
2003-12-28 01:29 | User Profile
Don't waste my time with your make-believe. The Churches are not silent, they are very, very, very vocal on the race issue. They are vehemently against racism in all of its forms and demand that world peace can only be achieved through multiracialism and (foreign aid=) essentially a transfer of moneys from the White First World to the inferior non-white third world. The Church hierarchy are so blind to reality and the problems that exist today and in the future that is beyond baffling.[/QUOTE]
Which churches? Yes, I know Catholic Charities, Evangelical Lutherans, and some others. Well, those are only a very small segment. Many churches have nothing at all to do with foreign missions of any kind. My church organization directs most of its efforts to white countries.
The fact is these liberal churches have their own political agendas or are following politically correct fashion, not traditional Christian teachings. I'm a Christian and I have yet to find anything in the Bible or Christian Tradition that demands racial self-genocide. It doesn't exist. All that does exist are Scriptures that foolish people try to twist to justify their own self-hating ideas.
Many of these liberal so-called Christians could have a white family next door in need of money or spiritual help, and these self-haters couldn't care less. But they will worry about helping some African who will believe whatever he's told in order to get the whiteman's handouts or a free ride to the US. And oh how the self-hating liberal can then puff out his chest with self-righteous pride at how he helped the poor, ignorant African.
-
2003-12-28 13:08 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasI think overpopulation is just as damaging to society and the environment if not more than multiracialism.[/QUOTE]
Well that's pretty revealing. Reviewing the [url=http://www.overpopulation.org/links.html] Links[/url] page from overpopulation.org shows you share some fine company in your primary concern. Planned Parenthood, EarthFirst!, Sierra Club, National Council of Jewish Women, The Gaia Church....Oh my! Reads like a laundry list of the Fourth International.
2003-12-28 16:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Which churches? [/QUOTE]
You're putting on an act again wild_bill. You know as well as I that all churches officially and vehemently oppose racism and call for "making the world safe for diversity".
2003-12-28 16:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Well that's pretty revealing. Reviewing the [url=http://www.overpopulation.org/links.html] Links[/url] page from overpopulation.org shows you share some fine company in your primary concern. Planned Parenthood, EarthFirst!, Sierra Club, National Council of Jewish Women, The Gaia Church....Oh my! Reads like a laundry list of the Fourth International.[/QUOTE]
I never visted any of those sites. Why don't you read this one:
[url]http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20031226/index.php[/url]
You really have no problem with overpopulation? You have no problem with waste, pollution, etc?
2003-12-28 16:37 | User Profile
RJ Rushdoony wrote a book called The Myth Of Overpopulation. He show that countries with a high population tend to be richer than countries with low populations.
Nature is mean, it takes labor to make it productive.
2003-12-28 21:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]RJ Rushdoony wrote a book called The Myth Of Overpopulation. He show that countries with a high population tend to be richer than countries with low populations.
Nature is mean, it takes labor to make it productive.[/QUOTE]
That's right.
I read somewhere that "in order to have a high per capita income, you first have to have some capita."
That's right.
Get married, have babies.
You know, some of these white SA groups will find in about 30 years that things look differently. AIDS and Planned Parenthood are doing their slow burn through black Africa, which I understand is looking at a demographic collapse. Just have babies, and raise them up in the traditions of our fathers.
And our success is guaranteed.
Walter
2003-12-28 21:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]RJ Rushdoony wrote a book called The Myth Of Overpopulation. He show that countries with a high population tend to be richer than countries with low populations.
Nature is mean, it takes labor to make it productive.[/QUOTE]
They have more poor people with a small percentage of wealthy. Just because they produce more goods per year does not make them richer. I think this Rushdoony is confusing large with rich.
2003-12-28 21:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]God loves you and sent His Son to die to take the punishment for your sins -- which, by the way, you couldn't help committing because your ancestors sinned, but which you're morally responsible for anyway.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Braveheart]Well, men can't help but get hungry, so therefore they should not ask for forgiveness when they steal food?[/QUOTE] It depends. If a man absolutely must steal food in order to survive, then no, he is not doing anything wrong by stealing food (unless he is putting someone else's survival at risk by doing so). However, as soon as he is able to do so, he is morally obligated to provide restitution to the one from whom he has stolen.
In any case, that analogy does not quite match the scenario posed by Christian dogma. A more accurate analogy would be represented by this question: "Men can't help but get hungry, so therefore they should not ask for forgiveness when they eat food?" And the answer, of course, is no: we should not ask for forgiveness when we eat food. It's not our fault that we have to eat, and we have a powerful instinctive drive to eat.
Similarly, if men can't avoid sinning, then it's not their fault that they sin.
Here's another analogy. Let's say I have a young puppy, and I willingly allow my nutty brother to train that puppy to bite any stranger who comes into the house. I continue to allow this training to go on until the dog is fully grown, and it becomes very aggressive as a result. Then, one day, I bring a guest into the house, and my dog promptly bites the guest. Do I have a right to punish the dog? I certainly have the power to do so; but do I have the right?
The above analogy to Christian dogma should be clear. In the story, I am analogous to God; my nutty brother plays the role of the Devil; the puppy represents any man created by God. Since God must have allowed the Devil to corrupt mankind -- nothing can happen without God's consent -- then mankind is not responsible for becoming corrupted. How, then, is it right to punish people for their corruption? How many of us asked to be born in a corrupted state? How many of us were given a choice?
In short, it's logically impossible for an infinitely good, just, and perfect God to punish anyone for deterministic behavior.
Again, I should make clear that I certainly DO believe in God. My skepticism lies with man's conception of Him.
2003-12-29 01:54 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasYou're putting on an act again wild_bill. You know as well as I that all churches officially and vehemently oppose racism and call for "making the world safe for diversity".[/QUOTE]
The Orthodox Church has never promoted or encouraged interracial marriage. They don't promote the destruction of races or nations either. I have yet to hear any Orthodox leader promote "diversity." There are some people in Orthodox parishes who don't even like white people of different nationalities to intermarry!
I find it odd that non-Christian racialists are always saying that the churches promote racemixing, but the reality is that I have yet to see an interracial couple in any church I've been in. All the churches I've been in have been virtually all white. And I'm not just talking about Orthodox, but Pentecostal, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist. If the churches really promoted racemixing to the degree you say, then ALL churches should be literal hotbeds of interracial marriage and leading everything else in integration. But that's not the case.
Regards, Wild Bill
2003-12-29 08:17 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasThey have more poor people with a small percentage of wealthy. Just because they produce more goods per year does not make them richer. I think this Rushdoony is confusing large with rich.[/QUOTE]
Rushdoony is just plain stupid.
Historically great nations start with low populations. The decline of great nations begins when the population rockets upward. Elmer Pendell's Sex Versus Civilization and Why Civilizations Self-Destruct are good wake-up calls for the more-the-merrier crowd.
Chronicles magazine has a writer named Chilton Williamson Jr who once argued that higher-density areas are less free than sparsely populated areas. This seems probable. Williamson himself was born in (packed) New York City and fled for the (relative) freedom of (unpacked) New Mexico, so he practices what he preaches.
Most devious of all is the argument that population growth=booming economy is the fact that it's what the open borders crowd has been bleating for the last 20 years. One of their favorite refrains is that native-born Americans aren't having enough kids, so let's import Hmongs, Mestizos, Bantus, etc, forever.
Wake up, fellas!
It was over forty years ago that the much-reviled Enoch Powell told his constituants that advanced economies [B]do not[/B] improve themselves by booting up their populations, they invest in better equipment and superior training.
But then, Powell might have been one of the West's last rational men. :sad:
2003-12-29 13:46 | User Profile
QUOTE=MithrasBut it isn't a baby-boom movement. It is a racial and cultural movement. To observe racial theories which influence action. WN groups do much more for the actual movement by spreading around racial theories and making folks aware of the problems of today's society. [/QUOTE]
Here's a basic racial theory for you - stop having babies and your race dies. Case closed.
-
2003-12-29 14:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It was over forty years ago that the much-reviled Enoch Powell told his constituants that advanced economies do not improve themselves by booting up their populations, they invest in better equipment and superior training. [/QUOTE]
Unfortunately many Europeans seemed to have listened to that nonesense. The last time I was in Britian it was very evident that the Brits aren't making enough babies to fulfill the labor market so they were importing people from heathen countries.
2003-12-29 16:25 | User Profile
What Emperor Julian said then is still true now. It was probably even more so in his times. It is too bad he was unable to stop the Christian plague.
2003-12-29 16:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Demigorgona]What Emperor Julian said then is still true now. It was probably even more so in his times. It is too bad he was unable to stop the Christian plague.[/QUOTE]
Come now! We have more food and clothing for less expense, live longer, have more rights and are generally more better off than at any time in recorded history. At least in Christian countries. But during the reign of the Apostate people were still wiping their butts with their hands. We've go to the moon, but they averaged 5 foot tall and had lice.
If Christanity is a plague, then may it spread.
2003-12-29 23:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]Unfortunately many Europeans seemed to have listened to that nonesense. The last time I was in Britian it was very evident that the Brits aren't making enough babies to fulfill the labor market so they were importing people from heathen countries.[/QUOTE]
Britain's political class is importing people from heathen countries for reasons that have nothing to do with the labor market.
To clarify, Enoch Powell was not advocating Zero Population Growth among the native Brit population, he was arguing against immigration. Powell assumed native population growth would remain more or less unchanged. He spoke before the widespread use of contraceptives and the rise of feminism changed the situation somewhat.
But both feminism and birth control are cultural issues which rely on massive media indoctrination. Radical change in this area is possible.
2004-02-15 18:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]As to Christianity's origins, I'm sure this is of some interest.
Whatever "Jewish" origins Christianity had, it diminished by the time of St. Paul. Scholars also talk about the heavy Greek influence in Luke's account of the Gospels. The most historians have ever been able to prove is that Christianity grew out of Hellenic Judaism, that is a form of Judaism more influenced by Greek thinking than by the Talmud. Christianity had origins in European thinking from the very beginning as the above quote shows. In other words, Christianity is as European in origin as any form of paganism.[/QUOTE]
There never was a man named Paul. His character is based on [url=http://www.apollonius.net/contents.html]Apollonius of Tyana[/url], for centuries skeptics saw in Apollonius the character Jesus. The travelogue of Apollonius is identical to Paul only in reverse order. Apollonius is Latinized to Paul.
This is known back to the foundation of Constantines Church STate (one god, one empire, one religion, one emperor) Eusubius wrote a tome trying to refute it, then again don't all religions and ideologies attempt refutation of critics?
There never was a man named in Greek Loukas, any more than we have men named Texan or Georgian. The adjective is territorial and simply means "a man from Lucania" a region of which the capital city was Luca, modern Lucca, south of Piso in Italy.
The Hellenized Jews were the presagers of Bolshevism. The Hasmonean Kings John Hyrcanus and his grandson Ioannes Alexander (which the Essenes called Good King Jonathan in the DSS), conquered Samaria (then inhabited by the Macedonians from Alexanders Army) and The Sea of Nations, Galilee, then inhabitated by Keltoi, Greeks, Syrians, Macedonians et al, murdered the literati, the upper and middle class and then turned the proles into drudge animals and worked them to starvation on collective farms.
But Christianity itself is Pharisiacal, because after the death of Ioannes Alexander his wife took the throne, and under the influence of the Pharisees massacred all of the Sadducee's, thus by the time of the putative Jesus there were no Sadducees in Jerusalem. The Sadducees were the Helenized Jews and the Hasmoneans were Sadducees.
There is speculation that Ioannes Alexander was poisoned and his widow Salome or (Selene Alexander) was threatened or bribed, as Ioannes himself was anti Pharisiacal.
2004-02-15 18:45 | User Profile
Wild Bill said:
You might be interested to know that one of the things that caused me to become a Christian was the neo-paganism within the patriotic movement. The main themes in neo-paganism always seem to center around occultism, death, violence, and doom.
And that is a reason to become a Christian. A reaction because you don't like some of the characteristics of some people. By that same logic you could have become a Hindu or a Muslim. This also means that you really don't believe in Jesus or Christianity because you are Christian by reaction.
And then Wild Bill goes on to say, in contradiction to his reactionary claim
whereas I view Christianity as God's revealed truth
To which Mithras replies
Through the eyes and ears of jews? If he is really God why then did he come to jews? And why do you reject the God that came to the Norsemen, or the Celts or whomever else?
And I say exactly.
Christianity is a Jewish invention, the god (YHVH) is Jewish, the godhead (Jesus) is Jewish, the whole superstition was created by the Jews, to subvert and destroy hated Rome from within. It contains Communism, Pacificism and subversion. It also gives the Jew a decided advantage, especially a commercial advantage, because as interpreted by the fathers of the Church Jesus said do unto others as others would do unto you, so sayeth the prophets so sayeth the law.
However the Law, which is Leviticus and the prophets actually said Do unto others as they do unto you, an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. Thus the Christian is disadvantaged when dealing with the Jew.
Also, "love thy neighbor as thy self" is misconstrued. In historical context one's neighbor was one's tribal and racial kinsman. The Jews understand that, the Christianized pagans of Europe don't.
Revilo P. Oliver, one of the wells of wisdom of the white nationalist Jew aware movement, wrote quite a bit on the fraud of Christianity, as regards a Jewish sales pitch to colonize and demoralize the minds of non Jews.
Check out, if you can find it "Christianity Today", Liberty Bell, November 1987, for starters.
I will note that Storm Front, although they carry some of Oliver's tomes, does not carry Christianity Today, as well as a few other of his better and more insightful and documented exposes about the Jewish origins of the fraud called Christianity.
Anyone who believes and defends Christianity is, whether they know it or not, a crypto Jew.
Wild Bill says:
The fact is the Christianity has a continuous 2,000 year Tradition.
Just because something is old does not make it truth. If that is your basis then Zoroastrianism (which has influenced Judaism and Christianity) is more true.
And Hindu, which is older still is the True Religion.
All paganism is fundamentally demonic.
There are no demons except in your mind. The notion of Demons and bad gods is Zoroastrian in origin - Ahura Mazda the Good God, Ahriman the Bad God. Satan is from Shatan, which is from and related to Set, the Egyptian brother of Osirius.
In fact the Osiris Dionysos myth, was known to the Romans as Orpheus Bacchus, including a crucified saviour see the [url=http://www.vexen.co.uk/books/jesusmysteries.html]Jesus Mysteries[/url]
[img]http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0722536771.02.LZZZZZZZ.gif[/img]
A Talisman from 4th Century Rome, the Greek reads Orpheus Bacchus (Osiris Dionysos) the Crucified figure is recognizable.
:whstl:
2004-02-15 19:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]Come now! We have more food and clothing for less expense, live longer, have more rights and are generally more better off than at any time in recorded history. At least in Christian countries. But during the reign of the Apostate people were still wiping their butts with their hands. We've go to the moon, but they averaged 5 foot tall and had lice.
If Christanity is a plague, then may it spread.[/QUOTE]
It is the European culture and mindset that humanized Christianity.
The Teutons sent the early salesmen from Rome packing. Rome then sent in spies to see what it had to do to alter it's doctrines.
The Jews have flourished in the shadow of the cross. The church from it's outset gave the Jews a monopoly on lending at interest (called usury then) by denying it as a practise to Christians.
The religion is full of demoralizing concepts, that strip the gentile of his natural defenses against barbaric Jewish subversion.
The Golden Rule, actually reads in Original Greek.
That which others would do unto you, do also unto them so sayeth the prophets so sayeth the law. And The law is Leviticus and the prophets and the law said "An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth" and Jesus said that not one iota or tittle of the Law is set aside.
Thus Christianity places the goyim at a disadvantage when dealing with Jews.
The Pacifism of Christianity: Turn the other cheek, contrary to the vengance of Judaism, thus placing the Christians at still another disadvantage to their hereditary enemies.
Christianity also preached Communism: Acts 2:43-5, Acts 4:32-35 (From each according to his ability to each according to his needs).
Christianity also preached subversion to the peoples own leaders and country. (No King but Christ). Which the Roman Emperors dogs at the Council of Nicea tried to revise by having Apollonius of Tyana aka Paul, have IHSus say "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars", yet the message is contraverted elsewheres.
The Christianity of today is still not acceptable to the European, but to the degree that it is, we can thank the Protestant Reformation, King Henry VIII, and the Age of Enlightment.
However a Jew by the name of Jean Cohen (whose father changed his name to Cauvin and "converted" so he could get employed as a treasurer for a Catholic Bishop - he then embezzled church fund and was excommunicated), changed his name to Calvin and Judaized Protestantism with his Mosaic Calvinistic doctrines, which created a lot of trouble and bloodshed and still do in the United States.
2004-02-15 21:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Nein Gott]Christianity is a Jewish invention, the god (YHVH) is Jewish, the godhead (Jesus) is Jewish, the whole superstition was created by the Jews, to subvert and destroy hated Rome from within.[/QUOTE]First of all, welcome to the board, NG.
The conclusion you stated above is one to which I am being drawn with some reluctance, as I was born into the Catholic faith and raised accordingly. I began questioning Christianity due to perceived logical and moral incongruities -- in particular, my conviction that the doctrine of eternal damnation for mortal men cannot be just -- and my doubts have only been amplified by the kind of historical issues you raise here. The idea of "eternal hellfire for nonbelievers" sounds like the precisely the kind of thing hateful Jews or a power-mad emperor might concoct, and the historical context in which Christianity developed makes such a scenario highly plausible. It certainly seems much more probable than the alternative: i.e., that God allowed damnation to exist in order to preserve man's free will but is willing to coerce man with the threat of damnation, thus undermining that free will! Genuine love cannot be commanded or coerced. That is not debatable; it is a fact.
2004-02-15 21:38 | User Profile
Ex-Catholics... ah, yeah. The world's largest disorganized religion. I've been a member in good standing for... well, awhile.
NG's emphasis on the historical origins of the Jesus myth is significant. In Europe, the UK and even Australia there's a large & growing movement to discover (how to put this?) the root of the roots. Where DID this business all come from?
No way to make this subject short. I've traced the Jesus character to about the 7th millennium BC (a very busy millennium) and I have no doubt it goes back further yet. But this character is decidedly European; this is not a tarted-up third world fertility cult. Jesus is a white man's god.
At the same time Americans are largely out of the loop on this subject. It is also significant that the book illustrated above originated in the UK. Likewise had you emphasized the trailblazing work of Tony Bushby it would be an Australian import. Americans wish not to ask questions on this subject.
Too bad. If they did, they would know why many pagans are sticking up for Mel in the current Passion controversy. Of course, they must! How can they stand by and let the Galilean Osiris get bashed? At least some pagans know who the guy really is.
2004-02-15 22:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Nein Gott]In fact the Osiris Dionysos myth, was known to the Romans as Orpheus Bacchus, including a crucified saviour see the [url=http://www.vexen.co.uk/books/jesusmysteries.html]Jesus Mysteries[/url] A Talisman from 4th Century Rome, the Greek reads Orpheus Bacchus (Osiris Dionysos) the Crucified figure is recognizable. [/QUOTE]
Sigh...I'll spend no more time on this drivel than to once again provide the following links that completely refute this nonsense:
[url=http://www.tektonics.org/TF.JM_060960581X.html]Tweedledee and Tweedledum on the Christian Faith: Review of Freke and Gandy's The Jesus Mysteries[/url]
[url=http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html]Glenn Miller's "Was Christ Just a Copycat Saviour Myth?[/url]
[url=http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04.html]J.P. Holding's "Confronting the Copycat Thesis[/url]
Someone recently told me that whenever true, orthodox Christianity is proclaimed as such without apology, then sure as sunshine those in service to the evil one will start coming out of the woodwork to attack it. I think we're seeing that born out here. Ephesians 6:12
But praise be to God, my Christian brothers! I just witnessed some friends of ours three children baptized in the name of the Triune God this very morning. Heaven and the Church are rejoicing as the True Faith marches ever forward expanding its numbers and claiming souls for Christ. Please remember us in your prayers as my own three will be baptized next Sunday.
" And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will crush your head..."
2004-02-15 22:18 | User Profile
Quite a few posts back there was some discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses. The comment was made that they are the closest to true Christianity, while other comments labelled them as a cult, and a sect.
I was born and raised a JW, and have 30 years of experience as a JW. Let me make a couple of comments:
The idea that the JW's take the Bible literally is not without validity. On the surface, it would appear that they adhere closely to the scriptures. JW's will even tell you that the apostles were "first-century Jehovah's Witnesses." However, it is not without reason that they publish their own Bible known as "The New World Translation". True, if you challenge a JW that they have their own Bible, they will disagree, and use some carefully chosen scriptures to compare with whatever version you have handy. However, the NWT is heavily massaged to support JW beliefs. For example, since JW's do not believe the trinity doctrine, they translate John 1:1 to read in part " and the Word was a god" and opposed to the more traditional "and the Word was God".
Also, by manipulation of punctuation, they can change entire meanings, without changing the text. For example, when Jesus was crucified, he made the comment to the evildoer recorded at Luke 23:43: "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise". However, the JW's so not teach an immortal soul, but rather a resurrection of 144,000 to heavenly life beginning in 1918 CE. So they translate Luke 23:43 to read: "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise".
Did you catch the subtle difference? Most people don't.
Also noteworthy is the addition of the name "Jehovah" 243 times in the NT, where it was not found a single time, in any of the oldest manuscripts. They justify it by blaming Satan for having it removed over the ages, and they are restoring it to it's original locations. However, in so doing, they once again are changing the meaning of the scriptures. Acts 7:59, 60 is one example of this, where Stephen cries out to Jesus to recieve his spirit, but then quickly switches gears and is now talking to Jehovah (instead of acknowledging that Jesus was his "lord")
There are many examples like this, but I will spare you the details. The truth is that the JW religion was a spin off of the 19th century Millerites, Second-Adventists and the teachings of the International Bible Student founder Charles Taze Russell. It relies heavily on date calculations, and in it's early days, even used Pyramidology to calculate the "last days".
It is not a true Christian religion, despite what they tell you.
Dan
2004-02-15 22:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Nein Gott]
Revilo P. Oliver, one of the wells of wisdom of the white nationalist Jew aware movement, wrote quite a bit on the fraud of Christianity, as regards a Jewish sales pitch to colonize and demoralize the minds of non Jews. [/QUOTE]
Before he went wacky, Oliver was a staunch defender of Christianity. In later years he became very cynical, bitter, and had contempt for Christians. But as a racialist, he never bothered to father even one child and ended his life by blowing his brains out. His later writings dripped with racial self-hate to a degree seldom seen. Some "well of wisdom!" The truth is the Jews defeated Revilo Oliver many decades before his physical death in 1994.
I've read most of Oliver's books, mostly because his cynicism was to a degree humorous, but a steady diet of Oliver's stuff will eventually demoralize many folks.
-
2004-02-15 23:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Someone recently told me that whenever true, orthodox Christianity is proclaimed as such without apology, then sure as sunshine those in service to the evil one will start coming out of the woodwork to attack it.[/QUOTE]Those who question Christianity are not in "service to the evil one"; we are simply interested in finding out the objective truth. For skeptics, the mere fact that someone insists on the truth of some claim does NOT make that claim true. We are not questioning God; we are questioning mere mortals, like ourselves, who transferred a compilation of ancient writings to us. We have not only the right to do so, but also the duty. If Christianity is true, then you should be happy to see it questioned, as the facts will speak for themselves, thus leading to the strengthening of believers' convictions and facilitating the conversion of doubters. The fact that sites such as Holding's are filled with ad hominem attacks and bitter sarcasm is indicative of the fear most believers have that their cherished convictions will collapse when rigorously scrutinized. It's a defense mechanism.
Secondly, claims similar to yours above are made by the adherents of nearly all religions. For example, the American aggression toward the Muslim world is taken by Muslims as clear evidence that we're doing the Devil's bidding by attacking that other "one true faith," Islam. It's kind of like the way person X might accuse person Y of being an alcoholic, even though person Y might be a teetotaler. Person Y will deny having a drinking problem, and person X will respond, "Aha! Denial is one of the signs of alcoholism! You need to get treatment for your problem."
2004-02-15 23:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Someone recently told me that whenever true, orthodox Christianity is proclaimed as such without apology, then sure as sunshine those in service to the evil one will start coming out of the woodwork to attack it. I think we're seeing that born out here.[/QUOTE]
Some attack out of ignorance. Lots of us seek to understand.
The word "sacred" comes from things which are forbidden or off-limits. The trouble with people like us is we draw the line in different places. Jesus is a powerful cultural achetype. Nobody doubts that. Look at the storm Gibson stirred up with nothing more than a movie. A movie!
A question to honorable people of any persuasion, though: What was your reaction to powerful, multi-million dollar epics depicting as accurately as possible the religions of the ancestors of European Man?
See? It takes a minute or two to realize there's never been one.
2004-02-15 23:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Nein Gott]
That which others would do unto you, do also unto them so sayeth the prophets so sayeth the law. And The law is Leviticus and the prophets and the law said "An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth" and Jesus said that not one iota or tittle of the Law is set aside.
Thus Christianity places the goyim at a disadvantage when dealing with Jews.
The Pacifism of Christianity: Turn the other cheek, contrary to the vengance of Judaism, thus placing the Christians at still another disadvantage to their hereditary enemies.
Christianity also preached Communism: Acts 2:43-5, Acts 4:32-35 (From each according to his ability to each according to his needs).
Christianity also preached subversion to the peoples own leaders and country. (No King but Christ). Which the Roman Emperors dogs at the Council of Nicea tried to revise by having Apollonius of Tyana aka Paul, have IHSus say "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars", yet the message is contraverted elsewheres. [/QUOTE]
One characteristic of nearly every fuming hater of Christianity I see is they quote Bible verses and then base their argument, not one the verse's true meaning, but on their own erroneous private interpretation. Then they pat themselves on the back thinking they have proven something. Its just a variant of the old "Strawman argument" technique.
-
2004-02-16 00:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]One characteristic of nearly every fuming hater of Christianity I see is they quote Bible verses and then base their argument, not one the verse's true meaning, but on their own erroneous private interpretation. Then they pat themselves on the back thinking they have proven something. Its just a variant of the old "Strawman argument" technique.[/QUOTE]Well, first of all, it's not necessarily the case that NG is a "fuming hater" of Christianity. He obviously does not believe in it, but that doesn't mean he hates it. None of us here believes in Buddhism, for example, yet I doubt that any of us hate Buddhism. It is true, however, that many who argue vehemently against Christianity (e.g., Linder) do so on the grounds that it is at odds with the pro-White movement. Although they might be correct about the latter, that in itself is not a valid reason for rejecting Christianity. (If one perceives that there is a dearth of extra-Biblical evidence for Christianity, then that most certainly is a valid reason for unbelief. Of course, the evidence is what's being debated, and I still consider the question to be somewhat open.)
Anyway, I agree that many who "argue from the Bible" fall into the trap of imposing their own meaning on the verses. However, this is done not only by non-Christians, but also by Christians of different denominations when they're arguing over some point of doctrine. If the meaning of the Bible were clear to scholars and theologians, then there would be no debate about its meaning -- just as there is no debate among scientists that electric current in metals is caused by the flow of electrons. The fact that the Bible is so difficult to interpret correctly -- indeed, that it requires any apologetics at all -- is itself evidence that it was not divinely inspired, in my view.
Here is how a logical proof might go:
-- God's word, being that of a perfect Being, must be perfect itself. -- With respect to communication, clarity is an important part of perfection. -- The Bible is obviously not a perfectly clear means of communication if (1) it requires apologetics to explain it, and (2) even believers cannot agree on its meaning. -- It follows that the Bible is not perfect. -- Thus, the Bible cannot be God's word.
One possible objection to the above is that it is not the Bible, but rather human understanding, that is imperfect. My reply is that God, being unlimited in power, is certainly not limited in His means by the characteristics of the mortals He designed. If God can make Balaam's ass talk, then He can make the Bible speak directly to all men such that they know it is true. It does not. Therefore, the proof stands.
Another possible objection is that God deliberately chose to make the Bible imperfect. But this would make God a deceiver, a view unacceptable to Christians. So that objection is ruled out.
Can anyone else dispute any of the premises of the argument or its logic?
2004-02-16 01:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] Here is how a logical proof might go:
-- God's word, being that of a perfect Being, must be perfect itself. -- With respect to communication, clarity is an important part of perfection. -- The Bible is obviously not a perfectly clear means of communication if (1) it requires apologetics to explain it, and (2) even believers cannot agree on its meaning. -- It follows that the Bible is not perfect. -- Thus, the Bible cannot be God's word.
Can anyone else dispute any of the premises of the argument or its logic?[/QUOTE]
Yes, because your argument is based on the flawed premise that the Bible is the sole repository of Christian doctrine. As I have reminded people on this board several times, the Church existed decades and even centuries before the New Testament came into being. The Church produced the NT, not the other way around.
In the early days, often local churches may have had only part of the NT, maybe only one book, and possibly had ZERO NT books. So, the obvious question is how can a Christian church function without a NT? They had the TRADITION as handed down orally by the Apostles.
The Bible can only be properly understood within that Tradition. If one attempts to interpret the NT without Tradition, every reader takes his own interpretation. A common characteristic of this are the endless and often tedious arguments and debates over the meaning of some verse or individual word.
When the Bible is taken with Tradition, this kind of controversy is minimized down to a single question: What has been the traditional interpretation of the Church? What did the Church Fathers say on this issue?
On fundamental issues of doctrine, it doesn't matter what some individual "thinks" a Bible particular passage means - his private interpretation alone has no authority. How has the Church interpreted the verse?
When understood in this light, arguments which basically consist of each side firing Bible verses at each other as if they were artillery shells, hoping to pound their opponent into submission, are a waste of time.
I'm not saying that there's no room for debate when it comes to the Bible. There are areas of Scripture which the Church takes no firm position or where there may be a variety of opinions by the Church Fathers and theologians. But its the basic issues that are not subject to private interpretation.
-
2004-02-16 02:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill] Yes, because your argument is based on the flawed premise that the Bible is the sole repository of Christian doctrine. As I have reminded people on this board several times, the Church existed decades and even centuries before the New Testament came into being. The Church produced the NT, not the other way around.
In the early days, often local churches may have had only part of the NT, maybe only one book, and possibly had ZERO NT books. So, the obvious question is how can a Christian church function without a NT? They had the TRADITION as handed down orally by the Apostles.[/QUOTE]
This portrayal of the episode involves a ludicrous imposture. The pretense here is that some sort of doctrinal unity existed amongst the mutually inconsistent, hostile, and homicidal sects (Athanasians/Arians/Manicheans/Donatists/Nestorians/Pelagians, etc.) which might properly be spoken of as manifesting a "Tradition" prior to the intrusion of the Roman state. It is only beginning with the greatly enhanced capacity to gradually complete the extermination of the Arian opposition to the Athanasians granted by Constantine/Nicea at the time of the creation of the NT that a Tradition can be said to have been initiated. But of course, this "Tradition" was thus not the product of a gentle "handing-down" of timeless wisdom, as the rhetoric, above, would disingenuously or ignorantly suggest, but rather the fanatically bloody foundation of all that was to follow of theocratically-ordained crusade, inquisition, witch-trial, religious war (and ludicrous dogmatic doctrinal impositions, to speak of the least of the perpetrated insanities).
2004-02-16 03:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]This portrayal of the episode involves a ludicrous imposture. The pretense here is that some sort of doctrinal unity existed amongst the mutually inconsistent, hostile, and homicidal sects (Athanasians/Arians/Manicheans/Donatists/Nestorians/Pelagians, etc.) which might properly be spoken of as manifesting a "Tradition" prior to the intrusion of the Roman state. [/QUOTE]
No, those are heresies which were dealt with by the Church. Their heretical theories are not part of Tradition.
It is only beginning with the greatly enhanced capacity to gradually complete the extermination of the Arian opposition to the Athanasians granted by Constantine/Nicea at the time of the creation of the NT that a Tradition can be said to have been initiated.
It was a heresy as determined by the Ecumenical Councils. Today we have the obviously bogus dispensationalism, but the fact that it exists doesn't make it part of any authentic Christian Tradition. It remains just another heresy, rejected by the Church.
But of course, this "Tradition" was thus not the product of a gentle "handing-down" of timeless wisdom, as the rhetoric, above, would disingenuously or ignorantly suggest, but rather the fanatically bloody foundation of all that was to follow of theocratically-ordained crusade, inquisition, witch-trial, religious war (and ludicrous dogmatic doctrinal impositions, to speak of the least of the perpetrated insanities).[/QUOTE]
The things you mention are not Tradition and came much later and were limited to those places under the control of Roman Catholicism. The Eastern Church wasn't involved at all.
-
2004-02-16 03:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]No, those are heresies which were dealt with by the Church. Their heretical theories are not part of Tradition.[/QUOTE]But why did these heresies exist in the first place? Because of a lack of clarity and coherence in the writings from which the Bible was derived. It's not valid to claim that the early Church's doctrine was coherent if the basis for that coherency was the use of force to quash dissent.
Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense for Jesus to have personally written down the tenets of the new faith He was founding? He could have written a detailed guide, How To Be Saved, and passed it around to everyone. He could have created a million copies out of thin air to avoid the inconvenient absence of the printing press, then told the disciples and others to distribute them. There were many ways the Gospel could have been spread that would have been much more effective than what was actually done. A perfect God would have chosen the perfect way to do things -- unless He wanted to deceive people. But why would a loving God want to do that?
2004-02-16 03:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill] No, those are heresies which were dealt with by the Church. Their heretical theories are not part of Tradition.[/QUOTE]
Bill, you yet again demonstrate a mastery of tautological apologetics. Your contentions are ostensibly unexceptionable because you implicitly but incorrectly seek to define them as true, as above. Tradition, of course, excludes heresy, or any alternative doctrine, for that matter - but "their theories" were not contemporaneously heretical - since Tradition, as such and as previously explained without pertinent contradiction, did not then exist, but was yet to be made possible by murderous facilitations provided by the Roman state, and was then but a selection amongst hostile alternatives. The "Tradition" thus has no pedigree such as you would suggest, and this is why the resort to the NT for something resembling authenticity in the faith.
2004-02-16 18:27 | User Profile
Wonder how many Jews are here claiming to be seeking truth, in between insults to Christianity. My guess would be over 50%.
2004-02-16 18:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Wonder how many Jews are here claiming to be seeking truth, in between insults to Christianity. My guess would be over 50%.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=Red]No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.[/COLOR]
This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
2004-02-16 19:40 | User Profile
Walter was right. This subject cannot be discussed.
Tex: Why not modify the rules and restrict the "Christendom" forum to believers only? The serious bashers can go elsewhere, the Christians won't have to question their morals/sanity/loyalties, and those of us non-aligned will just ignore the issue henceforth.
The discussions elsewhere on the forum are terrific, this forum is terrific, but the issue of religion is way too divisive and capping it might help. Just a suggestion of course.
2004-02-16 20:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]Tex: Why not modify the rules and restrict the "Christendom" forum to believers only? The serious bashers can go elsewhere, the Christians won't have to question their morals/sanity/loyalties, and those of us non-aligned will just ignore the issue henceforth.
The discussions elsewhere on the forum are terrific, this forum is terrific, but the issue of religion is way too divisive and capping it might help. Just a suggestion of course.[/QUOTE]
Blessed are the peacemakers and I appreciate your efforts toward that end with this suggestion, Ragnar. I will say that I won't restrict this forum in any way, but I am currently mulling over everything else right now.
2004-02-16 20:28 | User Profile
You know, Ragnar, that's not such a bad idea. Even if Tex doesn't change the rules, I'll probably bow out of religious discussions here from now on.
For those whose minds are not already made up and who want to do a lot of debate on the subject of religion, probably the best place for that is at the Internet Infidels board ([url]http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php[/url]). Although the board is owned and run by atheists and agnostics (some of whom are former Christians), there are a variety of beliefs represented there -- even including fundamentalism -- and the level of the debate is generally quite high. While there may be some good majority-Christian boards out there, the only ones I've heard about (e.g., RaptureReady) will reputedly ban you in a heartbeat if you question their views. Internet Infidels never bans anyone for their beliefs.
Please note that I'm NOT trying to lure anyone away from OD! Although I've gotten caught up in religious debates here at OD, that's never been my real reason for coming here. I come here because this is easily the best political board on the Net, and for that purpose it is irreplaceable. I spend more time at OD than at any other forum.
2004-02-17 01:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Bill, you yet again demonstrate a mastery of tautological apologetics. Your contentions are ostensibly unexceptionable because you implicitly but incorrectly seek to define them as true, as above. Tradition, of course, excludes heresy, or any alternative doctrine, for that matter - but "their theories" were not contemporaneously heretical - since Tradition, as such and as previously explained without pertinent contradiction, did not then exist, but was yet to be made possible by murderous facilitations provided by the Roman state, and was then but a selection amongst hostile alternatives. The "Tradition" thus has no pedigree such as you would suggest, and this is why the resort to the NT for something resembling authenticity in the faith.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure if I understand what you are trying to say. Sounds like you're covering several points at once. How about distilling it down some?
-
2004-02-17 02:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill] I'm not sure if I understand what you are trying to say. Sounds like you're covering several points at once. How about distilling it down some?[/QUOTE]
I've already "distilled" it - having explained the matter twice in terms of the pertinent highlights of the origins of your "Tradition". Evidently the historical references are not registering with you, suggesting that you need to investigate the history for yourself and to think about how you label things. For example, "heresy" implies an orthodoxy, which "orthodoxy" is merely arbitrarily referred to as such (i.e., is a matter of perspective) without theocratic power to transform one amongst competing orthodoxies into a singular "Tradition" (as you write of it). In our instance, the beginnings of theocratic authority was conferred upon one of the mutually hostile sects of early "Christianity" by Constantine and the Roman state. And each of these contestants had naturally represented (from their own points of view) an orthodoxy as against competing heresies. Therefore, if we allow ourselves to write of "Church" and "Tradition," we must write of (c)hurch(s) and (t)radition(s) extant prior to the 4th Century. So, properly speaking, a church with a tradition was permitted by Constantine to make a selection of texts filed together under the heading of "New Testament" in order to give this protege of the Roman state the cover of a cobbled pedigree justifying what was, in eventual effect, a license to kill conferred by secular authority.
2004-02-17 10:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]So, properly speaking, a church with a tradition was permitted by Constantine to make a selection of texts filed together under the heading of "New Testament" in order to give this protege of the Roman state the cover of a cobbled pedigree justifying what was, in eventual effect, a license to kill conferred by secular authority.[/QUOTE]
Wrong.
You might want to recheck your history, Slick.
2004-02-17 10:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Please note that I'm NOT trying to lure anyone away from OD! Although I've gotten caught up in religious debates here at OD, that's never been my real reason for coming here. I come here because this is easily the best political board on the Net, and for that purpose it is irreplaceable. I spend more time at OD than at any other forum.[/QUOTE]
Best political board, right!
I think that was the point I was trying to make (WM's reply indicates I was in too much of a hurry when I made it.) The religious issues degrade the political issues, and politics, right now, is getting down to survival issues.
Better to place the accent on what unites us. We got plenty of that to work with.
2004-02-17 14:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Wrong.
You might want to recheck your history, Slick.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, Tex,
Let's see: Athanasians wiping out Arians, etc., with Imperial blessing - Gnostic Gospels, inter alia, being excluded - yes, everything seems to be in order for the relief of WB's misconceptions.
Neo
2004-02-18 01:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Let's see: Athanasians wiping out Arians, etc., with Imperial blessing - Gnostic Gospels, inter alia, being excluded - yes, everything seems to be in order for the relief of WB's misconceptions.[/QUOTE]
A very straight and narrow line is drawn from Matthew 28:19 through Acts 8:26-39 to the Apostle's Creed of the early 2nd century, as one example, which is proclaimed in most Christian churches to this very day. The formal organization of NT canon, orthodox doctrine and such was largely in reaction to growing heresies of the day such as gnosticism. The point I'm making, as a staunch sola scriptura guy mind you, is that there was complete clarity in what belief made one a true Christian from the very day of Christ's great commission.
The Apostle's Creed
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.
2004-02-18 05:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]
The point I'm making, as a staunch sola scriptura guy mind you, is that there was complete clarity in what belief made one a true Christian from the very day of Christ's great commission.[/QUOTE]
Tex,
James/Yakob, of the family and true community of Jesus/Yeshua, affirmed Works and the Law as against the deluded heretic, Paul's, Faith and Grace.
Neo